Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Further consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Nuclear Power Station, Wylfa

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Power what further consultations he has had with the Central Electricity Generating Board regarding the Wylfa nuclear project.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the placing of contracts for the Wylfa, Anglesey, nuclear power station.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The acceptance of tenders is a matter for the Board, which is still in touch with both of the consortia concerned, and is keeping me informed of developments.

Commander Kerans: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that I have at the moment in my constituency 9·2 per cent. of unemployed, and if Richardsons Westgarth do not get this contract I shall be faced with something like over 1,000 unemployed in the next nine months? I understand that the differences are not all that great. Surely my right hon. Friend can use his powers under Section

8(1) of the 1957 Act and direct that this contract should go to an area of high unemployment. Surely this is a very bad advertisement for the North-East with all the demonstrations now going on and doubts about the future of this contract and the need to get further industries there when this kind of thing happens.

Mr. Wood: I quite understand the great importance of this matter to my hon. and gallant Friend. What I do not think unreasonable is that the Central Electricity Generating Board should have refused a tender which was not only high but which was for a design that it did not like. But, as proof of the importance which the Board itself attaches to this matter, it is, as I say, continuing conversations with both of the consortia, and it is also in consultation with the firm which my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned to see what could be done to offset the effects if, in fact, the contract for the station is not awarded to the U.P.C.

Mr. McKay: Is it correct that negotiations are still open and continuing with these firms and with the Central Electricity Generating Board? I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows that there was almost an engagement to employ the United Power Co. with regard to this power station in Anglesey. It is a serious matter, apparently, to the whole position of the North-East Coast, and it makes us wonder what is really the position. The situation of Richardsons Westgarth at Wall send, which firm is connected with the consortium, is really hopeless. The firm is in a desperate position, and we should like to have as much information as possible as to the present possibilities.

Mr. Wood: The Board and the consortium are still in touch. Both consortia put intenders which the Board thought too high. The U.P.C.'s re-tender was rejected by the Board for the reasons which I have told my hon. and gallant Friend, and it has been told that. But the U.P.C. and the Board are still in touch about this matter. The Board is also considering the English Electric tender. As far as the letter of intent was concerned, this could never be considered an unconditional promise. What the Board told the U.P.C. was that the Board


intended to give it the contract, but, obviously, always subject to a satisfactory tender being produced.

Commander Kerans: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Power when construction work on the Wylfa nuclear power station will start.

Mr. Wood: I cannot yet say.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether any other factor, apart from the disagreement on cost, is affecting the start on the construction of the Wylfa nuclear power station?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. The reason I cannot give the information the hon. Member wants, as no doubt he gathered from my Answer to an earlier Question, is that I understand the Generating Board has not yet been able to agree on the tender for the station. Until that decision has been made, I cannot give that information.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Power when he expects production in the iron and steel industry to be in creased to meet the target set by the National Economic Development Council.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Question of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) on 20th June.

Mr. Manuel: Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate clearly to the House what discussions his right hon. Friend has had with the Iron and Steel Board in order to comply with the intention of the National Economic Development Council? He surely is aware that the industry is presently working at fewer than 30 per cent. of its capacity. Will he not tell the House the firm proposals he has to relieve unemployment and short-time working in the steel industry?

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend is in regular and close contact with the chairman of the Iron and Steel Board. I should remind the hon. Member that

expansion of production in the iron and steel industry depends on the state of the economy as a whole, and he will be aware of the measures the Government have taken to stimulate the economy.

Dr. Bray: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what review has been made of future possible Government contracts for large steel-using projects, such as bridges and road construction programmes, to see if they can be brought forward to use spare capacity in the steel industry?

Mr. Peyton: I would prefer the hon. Member to put that question on the Order Paper.

Methane

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Power what effect the import of methane gas in the newly constructed tankers will have upon the gas industry of this country; and what consideration he gave, in approving the policy of methane imports, to the effect on the employment of men now engaged in the gas industry.

Mr. Wood: Imports of liquid methane from North Africa will give the gas industry a new raw material of special technological value and will thereby strengthen the industry's competitive position. The present scheme will provide about one-tenth of total gas supplies and is unlikely to have any significant effect on employment prospects in the industry.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that this is a new industry and it is likely to put out of employment a large number of miners and gas producers? The tanker for carrying this gas has already been launched and it is estimated that 700,000 tons will be imported in a very few years. That is bound to have an effect on these two industries. What preparations are being made to arrange for the workers in these industries to find other employment?

Mr. Wood: I discussed at considerable length when I made the decision some time ago what would be the likely effect on the coal industry, which was the main question at that time. In the gas industry, as the hon. Member knows, technological developments are taking place which on the whole require fewer men to produce a given volume of gas than do the old methods. That is natural.


Therefore, I cannot see that this particular decision to produce a proportion of the country's needs in gas in this way will be any more inimical to employment in the gas industry than a number of other technological developments which are taking place.

Mr. Awbery: Is not the importation of 700,000 tons of liquid gas bound to have a serious effect on the men producing gas in this country today? If not, why introduce this gas?

Mr. Wood: I do not think it likely to have any more effect on the men producing gas than the making of gas from oil feed stocks. That, as the hon. Member knows, is taking place at an increasing rate at present and employment in the gas industry, although dropping, is dropping at a very controlled and reasonable rate, and so far I have heard of no difficulties.

Nationalised Industries (Public Relations)

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Power if he will issue general directions, in the national interest, to the boards of each of the nationalised fuel and power industries to engage upon a twelve-months' public relations campaign to convey to the public the successes of their undertakings.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. Campaigns of this kind are within a board's responsibility and are a normal part of its effort.

Mr. Oram: In view of the gross misrepresentation that took place in 1955 and 1959 about the performances of nationalised industries, does not the Minister regard it as part of his duty, as the Minister responsible for three successful nationalised industries, to make sure that during this year in particular the truth about nationalised industries is known to the British public?

Mr. Wood: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have always been ready to give praise where praise is due. I do not believe that any general direction is necessary, because I think that the campaigns which the industries at present adopt are perfectly adequate for making known their achievements and also for making known the obligations

and the challenges which are still ahead of them.

Mr. Lee: Would the Minister not agree that we are now in a period when we are being told that a very great sum of money is to be spent for no other purpose than to denigrate the nationalised industries and in these circumstances is it not in the national interest that the nationalised industries should show the great success that they have achieved and be able to point to the shortcomings of many private industries?

Mr. Wood: Our objective will be to resist any further nationalisation. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Our objective will also be to show how successful we have been able to make the industries already nationalised.

Steel Output

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power what was the proportion of United Kingdom output of crude steel produced in Scotland in 1948 and 1962.

Mr. Peyton: 15·2 per cent. in 1948 and 9·2 per cent. in 1962.

Mr. Lawson: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that these are very disturbing figures for Scotland? To try to help to relieve this position, would he discuss with his right hon. Friend the possibility of his right hon. Friend once again approaching the chairman of the National Coal Board in an effort to relieve the burden of discriminatory coal price increases which have been imposed upon Scotland, so that Scotland will be able at least to buy the coal required for the steel industry at a price comparable with the price charged south of the border?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I can usefully add to the recent Answer which I gave on the question of coal prices. It was a commercial decision reached by the National Coal Board, and before the decision was reached the Board discussed it with my right hon. Friend, who thought that the decision was right and sees no reason to change his mind now.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Fuel Supplies

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Power what plans he now has to avoid


a breakdown in the distribution of coal and solid smokeless fuel next winter.

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend has had discussions with the National Coal Board which, in conjunction with the coal trade, is taking steps to increase supplies of house coal and to build up stocks for the winter. Supplies of gas coke should be adequate and production of the premium fuels is being increased. I hope that consumers will help by stocking fuel during the summer when they can buy at the lower prices.

Mr. Fitch: Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider setting up a permanent committee consisting of representatives of the National Coal Board and the Coal Traders' Federation to ensure a more efficient distribution of coal and smokeless fuel this winter? Surely after the experience of last winter plans should be laid now? Could he give any details of any specific plans already made?

Mr. Peyton: Consultations between the bodies the hon. Member mentioned are constant and between those bodies and my Department. While I certainly appreciate the aim the hon. Member has in mind, I do not think the setting up of another committee would help at all.

Mr. P. Williams: While having sympathy with my hon. Friend, who says that he would like to encourage householders to buy at cheaper summer prices, may I point out that there is a danger that future decreases in price may reduce that advantage? If the price decreases which are to take place could be announced at an early date, that would be a stimulus to early ordering.

Mr. Peyton: I think that is looking well beyond the edge of the horizon.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware that local authorities in Scotland are inhibited in their desire to implement the Clean Air Act because of difficulties encountered in securing adequate supplies of quality solid smokeless fuels; and if he will represent to the National Coal Board the need to construct a plant to produce solid smokeless fuel in Scotland at an early date.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. Supplies of Gloco are adequate. Premium fuels were scarce last winter, but the position should improve materially when the

National Carbonising Company's plant at Comrie in Fife shire comes into production early next year. The N.C.B. stated in their 1962 Annual Report that they are considering the possibility of building a premium fuel plant in Scotland.

Mr. Hannan: While I am pleased to have the information which the Parliamentary Secretary has given us, will he bear these facts in mind? The difficulties of local authorities are increasing and all the signs are of an increasing demand for this fuel, but as yet no production of this character has taken place in Scotland. In view of the large number of unemployed, would he not agree that it would be an advantage to have this necessary development in Scotland?

Mr. Peyton: We are fully aware of the importance of the matter. I think that what I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman is all that I would be prepared to say at the moment.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ten years have elapsed since the introduction of the Clean Air Act and that another five years will elapse before there are adequate supplies of smokeless fuel in Scotland? Cannot he do something to improve this situation?

Mr. Peyton: I think that the Answer I have given indicates some possibility of improvement. It is a serious problem both in the long and short term, and certainly engages the very careful attention of my Department.

Exports

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Power by what percentage the amount of coal exported this year up to the latest convenient date exceeds that exported in the same period in 1962.

Mr. Peyton: 41·5 per cent. up to 31st May.

Mr. Fitch: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that encouraging reply, may I ask him to say whether there is any prospect of our increasing our coal exports to Common Market countries? Has the National Coal Board been in contact with the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community about this possibility?

Mr. Peyton: The very gratifying increase which has taken place in coal exports has been very largely to continental Europe. I think the hon. Member can be quite certain that the Board will remain in very close touch with any potential customers in Europe and elsewhere.

New Power Station, Scotland (Coal Supplies)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Power to what extent he estimates the decision to make the new Scottish power station coal-burning will affect the number of men employed in the coal-mining industry of Ayrshire.

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect on the market for coal and employment in the industry of the decision by the South of Scotland Electricity Board to construct a 2,300 meggawatt power station to be fuelled by coal.

Mr. Wood: When the projected station is in full operation I understand that it will burn about 5½ million tons of coal a year. This is equal to the output of about 10,000 miners, but it is too early for the Coal Board to say how this employment would be distributed between the different parts of the Scottish coalfield.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that after the Barony pit was shut down there was a definite undertaking by the Coal Board that if the power station was coal-fired the Barony would be reopened? Is he aware that there would be great relief in the area if that decision were come to?

Mr. Wood: I understand that the chairman of the Scottish Coal Board said, as the hon. Member has suggested, that he expected the Barony pit to be reopened within the next three years, but when that time will be must depend on a number of considerations, technical and otherwise.

Mr. Hill: Although the figures given by the Minister are very encouraging, will he reject out of hand the agreement made between the Coal Board and the Electricity Board in Scotland that the next power station shall be oil-fired? What right has oil to have that guarantee—a guarantee which coal cannot get? I

should like to know what the Minister is prepared to do about this, because in Scotland we are very concerned about imported fuel getting a guarantee which the coal industry can never get from the Government.

Mr. Wood: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member welcomes the decision which the Secretary of State for Scotland announced last week. I am sure we all feel that it would be too early for us to speculate about what fuel will be used in the next power station, and, although I have seen the report to which the hon. Member referred, I am not prepared to speculate. This will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide when application is made to him for either a coal-fired or an oil-fired station. He will decide that matter when the time comes for him to give his consent.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Minister aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the reopening of the Barony pit simply will not do? It was not only the chairman of the Scottish Coal Board but Lord Robens himself who gave a definite promise that if the new power station is to be coal-fired the Barony would be reopened. Will it be reopened?

Mr. Wood: If Lord Robens made the statement it is clearly a matter for Lord Robens and the Scottish Board to decide.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the tremendous importance of this decision to the future of the coal mining industry, can the Minister say why there was such inordinate delay in arriving at the decision?

Mr. Wood: I think the hon. Member will realise that the comparative cost of coal and oil had very carefully to be examined and various considerations had to be balanced against the great benefit to which the hon. Member has drawn our attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Judicial and Penal Questions

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will initiate a conference of Ministers from countries of the Commonwealth who


are concerned with judicial and penal questions, together with expert advisers, to discuss the merits of various penal methods, including the use of corporal punishment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney): I understand that a United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders is to be held in Stockholm in August, 1965. This may be proceeded by a series of regional meetings also under United Nations auspices. My right hon. Friend sees no need for a Commonwealth Conference in addition.

Mrs. Hart: This conference will, of course, be welcome. But is the hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that in Tanganyika in our own Commonwealth some convicted prisoners are to have 24 strokes of the cane every year of their imprisonment? Is it not a pity if we cannot assist within the Commonwealth some of our former territories to achieve more quickly than we did in a hundred years of struggle enlightenment on penal procedures, and is not this a direct Government responsibility?

Mr. Tilney: Tanganyika is a sovereign independent State of the Commonwealth, and neither I, my right hon. Friend, nor Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility for it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that when our delegation is being made up for the conference that is to take place it will include representatives from some of our Colonial Territories so that they may enjoy the benefits of more progressive methods of penal reform?

Mr. Tilney: I will bear the views of the hon. Gentleman in mind.

Overseas Migration Board

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he intends to wind up the Overseas Migration Board.

Mr. Tilney: It is not at present the intention of my right hon. Friend to wind up the Overseas Migration Board, although it has not had occasion to meet for some time.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us are delighted that it is not the present intention to wind up this Board? Will he understand that there can be two interpretations of the phrase "wind up" and that it might be worth while using this Board for positive purposes in Commonwealth Relations?

Mr. Tilney: Migration is going very well. Perhaps my hon. Friend is not aware that in the last year migration to Canada and New Zealand exceeded that of 1961, and that this year the applications for Australia are three times what they were last year.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to say that this Board has not had occasion to meet for some time is extremely ambiguous? Is he aware that the position is that the Minister has decided that the Board should not meet but that the members of the Board—and I am one—would be only too glad to meet if the opportunity were offered, and is not the present position of putting it in cold storage very unsatisfactory?

Mr. Tilney: The Board met last July, and I understand that at that routine meeting all members of the Board agreed that such meetings with no substantive agenda should be discontinued.

Mr. Williams: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter upon the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA, UGANDA AND KENYA

Federation

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest support to, and co-operate in, the establishment of a Federation of Tanganyika, Uganda and Kenya, including its extension to Somalia and Zanzibar, to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and to Ruanda and Barundi.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The British Government have long believed that Federation would do much to promote the stability and prosperity of


East Africa. We therefore warmly welcome the recent announcement by the President of Tanganyika and the Prime Ministers of Uganda and Kenya of their intention to establish a Federation embracing their countries and to invite the Government of Zanzibar, after the forthcoming elections, to participate in the preparatory discussions.
Whilst this decision is one for the East African Governments themselves, they can count on the fullest support and co-operation of the British Government in their efforts to bring the Federation into being without delay.
I understand that it is intended that the Federation should in the first place be confined to the four countries I have mentioned. This does not of course preclude the possibility that other countries might be invited to join later.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon Gentleman aware how all of us welcome the statement which he made? Is he aware that the proposal is not only that this political Federation shall begin but that it shall be established in economic and transport relations with Somalia, Ethiopia, the countries of the Central African Federation, Ruanda, Urundi, and also the Congo? When we have this tremendously hopeful idea, will he give every possible assistance to a proposal which may cause quite a change in the whole pattern in Africa in a hopeful direction?

Mr. Sandys: I am in full agreement with everything that the hon. Member said. I think that the Governments concerned are wise to base the new Federation, in the first place, upon the three Governments which already have embryo federal links through the East African Common Services Organisation, and then to consider extension later.

Mr. F. Harris: While welcoming very much indeed what my right hon. Friend told us this afternoon, may I ask whether he can give us any indication when the East African Federation of Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika will come into operation?

Mr. Sandys: I could, but I think that that is a matter for the Governments themselves to state.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

Economic Assistance

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will state in respect of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika, Uganda, Trinidad and Jamaica for the year 1961–62 the total amount of Government economic assistance; and what percentage of this was returned under the arrangement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government as pensions to retired overseas civil servants.

Mr. Tilney: Since the Answer to the first part of the Question consists of a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report. The Governments to which the hon. Gentleman refers pay pensions to retired overseas officers in discharge of their normal governmental responsibilities. By arrangement with the Nigerian Governments, the British Government pay the pensions of some of the Overseas Officers, who have served there, and are reimbursed from Nigerian funds.

Mr. Thomson: Is it not a typical piece of Treasury self-deception to describe as economic assistance money which we give the newly independent Commonwealth countries in order that they may pay it back to our people here who served the Crown while those countries were still Colonies? Will he at least ensure that this kind of self-deception is not repeated with Kenya and other countries which are approaching their independence?

Mr. Tilney: I think that the hon. Member is possibly getting muddled up with loans for commuting pensions and also for compensation on change of office and status. That is another question.

Following are the figures:


GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE DISBURSED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1961–62


£ thousands


Recipient country
Loans
Grants
Total


Nigeria
6,551
1,267
7,818


Sierra Leone
100
2,737
2,837


Tanganyika
3,925
5,737
9,662


Uganda
3,550
3,089
6,639


Trinidad/Tobago
—
78
78


Jamaica
1,029
1,444
2,473

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA

Discussions

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions regarding the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia.

Mr. Sandys: Very substantial progress has been made in the constitutional and other preparations for the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. Malayan and Singapore Ministers are at present in London discussing with me certain issues which are still outstanding.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the failure of the Federation in Central Africa and in the West Indies, will the right hon. Gentleman take the utmost care to be sure that the peoples of these territories spontaneously desire this Federation? Has a reply been sent from the Government to the proposal of the Foreign Ministers of Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines that before the Federation is introduced the United Nations should have the responsibility of investigating whether the peoples of all these territories support this Federation?

Mr. Sandys: I think the hon. Member knows that the peoples of the North Borneo territories demonstrated their desire to join Malaysia in a very clear manner in the elections which took place both in North Borneo and in Sarawak, When the hon. Member speaks of the proposal that the United Nations should send a representative to ascertain their wishes, I think that he is referring lo a recommendation by the Foreign Ministers of the three countries, which attended the Manila conference, to their own Governments. The three Governments are to meet again at Prime Minister level to consider that recommendation. Meanwhile, there have been consultations between the Malayan Government and the British Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Are we to take it that in any case the proclamation of the Federation will take place on 31st August? Has the right hon. Gentleman paid any special attention to Brunei, which is in rather an exceptional position? That being so, may I ask him whether the proclamation of the Federa-

tion might take place with the exclusion of Brunei for the time being?

Mr. Sandys: The target date for the formation of the Malaysian Federation is 31st August. I hope that the various negotiations on outstanding points will be completed in time to realise that target date, but it depends on the negotiations being completed. We have always made it clear that the question of Brunei was one which must be negotiated between the Government of Brunei and the Government of Malaya. I hope that they, too, will manage to settle any differences which are still out sanding before that date. But that would not of itself hold up the formation of the Federation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he said about the United Nations and re-state the principle that relations between Commonwealth territories shall be settled within the Commonwealth and not within the United Nations?

Mr. Sandys: I did not state any principle. I tried merely to remind the House that what has happened is that the Foreign Minsters of the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia have made a recommendation to their own Governments. That is the present position.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State agree that on the narrower question of the realisation of the Federation of Malaysia it is not so much a question of further ascertaining the wishes of the people, for a great attempt has been made to do that, as of securing a successful financial settlement between the various Governments? In view of the very great importance of this whole area to the Federation, and of pressing these matters to a conclusion next month, will he do everything in his power to facilitate a successful conclusion to these predominantly financial arrangements?

Mr. Sandys: The differences are not exclusively or even primarily between the British Government and the others. Certain difficulties have arisen in the negotiations between the Government of Singapore and the Government of Malaya. I am trying to sort them out. It is not easy, but I am hopeful that we shall still find satisfactory solutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Uniforms

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Education if he will introduce legislation to control the standards of blazers and other items of school uniforms.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): My right hon. Friend does not propose to introduce legislation on this matter, which is one for the local education authorities and the school.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is an important problem for parents, who feel that they should not be asked to provide school uniforms for their children without some sort of guarantee that the clothes will give value and reasonable wear for the money spent, which many of them have a very tight squeeze to afford? Since local education committees and head teachers are becoming concerned about shoddy blazers and other garments, would he make a fresh approach to the problem, in consultation with them, with a view to providing a standard which is more satisfactory both in respect of value for money and in respect of wear?

Mr. Chataway: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of this subject and with much else that she said. Education proceeds on the basis of a partnership in this country; there are some things which are the responsibility of the central Government and some which are the responsibility of local education authorities. This is a matter which I think properly falls to the local education authorities who will, I am sure, have taken note of the reference to school uniforms in the Molony Report.

Day Release Courses

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education if, as a result of the co-operation of certain local education authorities and firms in developing non-vocational day release courses, referred to in pages 32 and 33 of his last annual report, he will issue a circular of advice to local education authorities to encourage the broadening of day-release curricula.

Mr. Chataway: The desirability of broadening the studies of day release and other students was stressed in the Circular on the organisation of further education courses which my right hon. Friend sent to local education authorities and colleges on 18th February. A booklet on "General Education in Technical Colleges" was published with a similar object last year. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these.
My right hon. Friend proposes to make available to all authorities and colleges the results of the experiments to which the hon. Member refers as soon as firm conclusions can be drawn from them.

Mr. Boyden: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, whereas many local education authorities and employers run very successful vocational courses, there is far less enthusiasm for liberal and non-vocational courses? Will he keep up the pressure in this respect so that a good foundation can be laid ultimately for carrying out the recommendations of the Crowther Report about day release?

Mr. Chataway: Yes. This was a matter upon which the Crowther Report laid particular emphasis, and we are determined to pursue it.

Physical Training and Recreation (Grants)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many schemes for village halls, community centres and playing fields he has approved under the Physical Training and Recreation Act in the current building programme; and what are the total capital grants allocated to the voluntary bodies in each category.

Mr. Chataway: During 1962–63, my right hon. Friend made firm offers of grant totalling £176,500 for 170 village hall schemes, £36,000 for 17 community centre schemes and £93,500 for 67 playing field schemes. These schemes are not at present covered by a formal building programme.

Mr. Boyden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure is still not up to that for 1961–62? Has he not an obligation to make bigger grants in the current year than were made in 1961–62 in order to bring it up to that level? Surely there is a great need to encourage this activity?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council announced a considerable advance in this matter in the House of Lords recently. As a result we shall be making more generous grants—more generous in a number of ways—to sports bodies.

School-building Programme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education when he will announce his revised proposals for next year's school-building programme.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend will shortly approve a limited number of additional projects for the 1964–65 school-building programme. These will in the main provide places urgently needed to keep pace with new housing developments. The final size of the 1964–65 programme depends on the outcome of the Government's review of capital investment and the capacity of the building industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

Mr. Swingler: What is the value of the additional proposals the Minister is prepared to approve? Will there be any addition for the replacement of obsolete schools?

Mr. Chataway: There will be virtually no additions for replacement jobs among this group of additional projects that my right hon. Friend is about to announce, because this money falls within the original total announced. The Government review of investment is still awaited.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education (1) if he is aware of the difficulties with which the Kent Education Committee are faced as a result of the limited capital allocation for major school-building projects; and, in view of the general concern in Kent, if he will make a statement on his decision to approve an allocation of £1¼ million for the major building programme for 1964–65 against the proposed programme of over £4½ million submitted by the Kent Education Committee;
(2) in view of the policy set out in the White Paper of 1958, Secondary Education for All, and his Department's Circular No. 342 of December 1958, why he has approved for the 1964–65 programme 14

out of 16 projects submitted by the Kent Education Committee for primary schools but only four secondary school projects, at an estimated cost of about £600,000, out of 25 submitted with an estimated cost of £3¾ million.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties facing the Kent Local Education Authority, but in compiling the Major Building Programme for 1964–65 he gave priority to projects required in areas of new housing where children would otherwise have no schools to go to, and to projects designed to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools. All projects submitted by the Kent authority that came within these categories were included in their programme, together with one secondary school improvement project. Since the programme was announced the authority has submitted a number of additional projects, and these are under consideration.

Mr. Dodds: How can the Parliamentary Secretary defend such a scandalous state of affairs? Is he not aware that in Kent there are sub-standard schools; that more families are moving in; that children are staying longer at school, and that in 1967–68 the so-called bulge will, in the secondary schools, be an explosion? Is he not aware that his right hon. Friend, who was welcomed as Minister of Education, has now been denounced on all sides and, even for the right hon. Gentleman's low standards, is it not a terrible thing that 21 out of 25 proposals for secondary schools should be rejected?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that total education building starts have been increased by 43 per cent. in the course of this Parliament, which would hardly seem to justify his language. My right hon. Friend recognises that there are urgent needs still to be met in this authority's area, as in others, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that the fresh applications that have been made by the authority are under active consideration, and that my right hon. Friend hopes to make announcements about further projects in a short time.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Would my hon. Friend convey to our right hon. Friend that all of us would like more schools—this problem does not apply to Kent alone—but that we appreciate what has already


been done and look forward to his constructive proposals for the future?

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Educational Research

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to encourage suitable persons to enter the field of educational research.

Mr. Chataway: The commissions my right hon. Friend is making from his research fund have led to the creation of a number of new research posts at various levels. In addition, my right hon. Friend has approached the University Grants Committee about strengthening staff and equipment in universities for general educational research. As a result, the Committee has recently offered certain universities recurrent grants for this purpose, provision for which was made in the increased grants announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 9th May. The recruitment of staff is of course a matter for the universities themselves, but the Committee feels sure, as does my right hon. Friend, that the resulting new posts will attract more first class people to a career in educational research.

Mr. Irving: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first requirement is a willingness to spend more money on educational research? At present we are spending a very small fraction of 1 per cent. of our total expenditure on education on research. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, after money, the biggest bottleneck is the supply of personnel? In view of the difficulties of recruitment, training, and the establishment of career prospects, and in view of the need to integrate these people into the education service, will not be set up a committee to review this problem, or refer it to one of his advisory bodies?

Mr. Chataway: I will certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the sums spent upon research have been increasing. My right hon. Friend sees clearly the need here, both for appropriate training arrangements and for a better career structure.

My right hon. Friend is not resting on what has been done, but a promising start has been made.

SECURITY (MR. PROFUMO)

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Prime Minister by what authority the Secretary to the Cabinet at the time cautioned a Minister of the Crown and Privy Councillor on a matter of security on 9th August, 1961.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Lord Norman brook, who was a Member of the Privy Council, Secretary of the Cabinet and official head of the Home Civil Service, informed Mr. Profumo of certain facts which had come to the knowledge of the Security Service and alerted him to the possible security implications of those facts. Lord Normanbrook was acting in the course of his duty and required no special authority.

Mr. Yates: In view of that, may we assume that Lord Normanbrook did not minute or mention a matter concerning a member of the Defence Committee and a Minister of the Crown to the Prime Minister himself? Since when has it become the practice for the Prime Minister or any other Minister to cast the blame or cast doubt on the duties or the effectiveness or the work of a civil servant in this country?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, Lord Normanbrook made a minute which is in his files. He made quite clear what he did and that he did not report it to me. I am not in the least attempting to put blame on to him, but I thought it right to tell the House the facts.

Mr. Hale: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that some of us recall the former Secretary of State for his careful, sympathetic and compassionate attention to individual cases and that the invocation—
That mercy I to others show,
That mercy show to me.
might now be usefully employed both in relation to retired Secretaries of State and to corporals in the Royal Corps of Signals?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but I still thought it right to tell the House the facts. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Prime Minister whether the report on John Profumo made to his private secretary by a newspaper manager was in written form; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the Question is, No, Sir. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? In the House of Commons Manual of Procedure, paragraph 168 lays down that where a Minister of the Crown refers to a document, or, I take it, a report, he should lay that document on the Table of the House. In this case the Prime Minister refuses to lay this letter on the Table.

Mr. Speaker: In any event, it is much too late to raise that in relation to the Prime Minister's speech; but I thought the right hon. Gentleman said that there was no such document.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to determine the conditions upon which persons appointed to the Privy Council after having held office in the United Kingdom may continue to be members of the Council, and to provide for cessation of membership.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to define the conditions upon which persons subject to the constitutional law of the United Kingdom may remain members of the Privy Council, and to provide for retirement from the Council.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that he wrote to me asking me, when this Question was originally down on Tuesday, to postpone the Question because he wanted to give the Answer on Thursday? Before that he said that he intended to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to reply.

It was at his suggestion that the Question was postponed. Why could not the Deputy Prime Minister have given this Answer on Tuesday, as the Prime Minister at first suggested?

The Prime Minister: Because the matter was still under consideration. A submission had been made to Her Majesty which she was graciously pleased to approve, and the matter has been dealt with. I should have thought that the House would like to leave the matter there.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hamilton: Whilst I am sure that the whole House would hope that the circumstances which prompted this Question will never occur again, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the Government took power whereby the initiative in these matters rested with them rather than with the erring member of the Privy Council?

The Prime Minister: I think that the House would probably feel that it is best to leave the matter now where it is.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the desire of some hon. Members that certain Privy Councillors should renounce their membership of the Privy Council, is the Prime Minister aware that in this assembly there exists at least a majority of hon. Members who are dying to become Privy Councillors?

Sir R. Cary: Would it not be infinitely better to leave the ancient traditions of appointment to the Privy Council completely unchanged?

The Prime Minister: That is why this took a little time. Mr. Profumo wrote on 13th June asking that some way should be found to enable him to divest himself of his Privy Councillorship. The precedents were somewhat obscure, and it took a little time to devise what appeared to be the right way to carry out his wishes. I think that the submission which Her Majesty accepted was the right one in the circumstances.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will propose to President Kennedy that the two


Governments should seek to secure agreement on a settlement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before further building up the military power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
>
(2) if he will inform President Kennedy that any decision on British participation in a multilateral mixed-manned nuclear surface fleet will be deferred until after the next General Election.

The Prime Minister: I am sure the House will realise that it would not be appropriate to go into detail on the possible subjects for my talks with President Kennedy. But I will, of course, bear the hon. Gentleman's ideas in mind.

Mr. Zilliacus: While appreciating what the Prime Minister has just said—and I thank him for saying that he will bear these remarks in mind—would he also bear in mind the fact that the present situation is highly unsatisfactory; where any member of N.A.T.O. may commit us to be incinerated for policies over which we have no control and with which we do not agree; for example, that of the United States in the case of Cuba? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the military and political merits of the mixed-manned fleet have just been submitted to some fairly vigorous criticism in another place and that a high military authority, Lord Montgomery, without exaggeration may be said to have shown less than wholehearted enthusiasm for the proposal?

The Prime Minister: All these varied points will be borne in mind.

Mr. Edelman: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one point of detail and say which language the proposed multilateral fleet would use? Would it be English or would it be multilateral?

The Prime Minister: That is another question which must be borne in mind.

Sir C. Osborne: Before my right hon. Friend makes a final decision on this difficult problem, will he give adequate consideration to the bitter opposition of the Soviet Government to the rearming of Germany, even by indirect methods, with nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: That, also, is relevant.

LORD DENNING (INQUIRY)

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry announced by him on 21st June, 1963, to be undertaken by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, will be required to investigate any matters within the responsibility of the Admiralty.

The Prime Minister: I am not myself aware of any matters within the responsibility of the Admiralty which fall within Lord Denning's terms of reference. If the hon. Member has any information of this character, no doubt he will send it to Lord Denning in accordance with his public request.

Mr. Foot: Am I not right in understanding that matters concerned with the Admiralty should fall within the ambit of this investigation because Ivanov was a naval attaché of some sort? Surely that would arise? Did the Prime Minister know, when he selected Lord Denning for this appointment, that Lord Denning's brother was the Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty?

The Prime Minister: I think the whole House would feel that there is no possible connection with what Lord Denning would do in carrying out his duties.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether persons appearing before Lord Denning in the course of his forthcoming inquiry will be permitted representation by counsel or solicitors in the same manner as persons appearing before a tribunal of inquiry.

The Prime Minister: Lord Denning has asked those who have information for his report to communicate with him and has stated that any information he receives will be treated by him with the strictest confidence and used by him only for the purposes of his inquiry and report.
In these circumstances he thinks that in the ordinary way a witness before him will not need to be legally represented; but if any person should feel that his interests need protection Lord Denning is very ready to consider a request that he should be accompanied by his legal adviser.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Devlin Commission into the so-called massacre plot in Nyasaland was an inquiry held in secret also, but that Dr. Banda and his colleagues were, without question, allowed legal representation? Should not the same consideration be extended to citizens of this country in this situation? If there are cases in which Lord Denning does allow counsel to appear, will arrangements be made for legal aid to be extended to the people who wish to avail themselves of this opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I think that the major question is covered in the second part of my reply. I feel sure that the House can rely on Lord Denning to exercise his discretion wisely in this matter.

Mrs. Castle: If it is conceded that there is a right here for legal representation, will the Prime Minister now answer my question about legal aid? Will he see that legal aid is given to those who want to take advantage of this opportunity on at least as generous a scale as we have been promised will operate in the case of the Vassall Tribunal?

The Prime Minister: I will consider that point. It is not in the Question, but I will consider it.

KING AND QUEEN OF GREECE (VISIT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what information he now has regarding the proposed state visit of the King and Queen of the Hellenes.

The Prime Minister: The Greek Prime Minister told the Greek Parliament on 24th June that it is not intended that there should be any change in existing plans.

Mr. Driberg: While we all hope that Their Majesties will not be physically molested, as the Home Secretary has confirmed did not occur on a previous occasion, has the Prime Minister warned the Greek Government that there will be demonstrations on quite a substantial scale and that Her Majesty's Government will have no right whatever to stop those demonstrations if they are peaceful?

The Prime Minister: We all hope for the success of this visit, which marks

a very long and close alliance between Britain and Greece in two wars. That friendship was temporarily obscured over the Cyprus problem but, that having been settled, this visit seemed an admirable opportunity to restore that ancient friendship. On the special question, we have told the Greek Government that while we will take every precaution to see that there will be no incidents that will give rise to personal molestation, the ordinary rights of peaceful demonstration are, of course, part also of our tradition here.

SOUTH VIETNAM

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the British responsibilities as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, in his talks with President Kennedy he will discuss with him the pursuance of a joint policy in South Vietnam consistent with the provisions of the 1954 agreements and the prescriptions of the United Nations Charter.

The Prime Minister: The United States and British Governments are already agreed on policies in South Vietnam consistent with the 1954 Agreement and the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by constituting South Vietnam as a base for harbouring and supplying to other parts of South-East Asia American troops and arms, the United States is breaking the provisions of the 1954 Act and that recently she has been adding to that by spraying crops, fruit and so on in order, ostensibly, to smoke out Communists but at the same time poisoning people? Does he not think that these things today are sufficiently serious to warrant him having a little talk with President Kennedy about them to see if they cannot be ironed out in the interests of peace?

The Prime Minister: I think that the whole House knows our view on this. South Vietnamese are entitled to ask for foreign advice and assistance for ending insurgency originating and stimulated from abroad. At the same time, we have done everything possible, at Geneva with our allies and in other forms of negotiations, to try to keep this dangerous position under control.

Mr. Rankin: If they are merely being encouraged from abroad, as is said, and


not sometimes inspired by the United States, will the right hon. Gentleman say why a Buddhist priest, in a world protest, burned himself to death in public in protest against these happenings?

The Prime Minister: We must consider the long history of this affair and the general view that we and our allies should do everything we can. We have had good negotiations with the Russian Government to try to prevent this from becoming a danger point in the world.

NORTH ATLANTIC ALLIANCE

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that an essential condition of the continuation of the alliance with America is the existence of a guarantee against the danger of the United Kingdom being involved in a nuclear war as the result of decisions over which she has no control; and if he will convey this point to President Kennedy in their forthcoming talks.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member is aware, the British Government's policy towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Alliance is well-known. No new assurances about it are required. I believe that this policy is supported by at least the majority of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one occasion comes to mind when that policy was not supported on this side of the House? Does he recollect not so long ago there was a time when we were called on to intervene in policies in which we had no shaping? Will he say to President Kennedy, gently and nicely, that we do not want to see any more Cubas taking place involving us in policies over which we have no control?

The Prime Minister: I think the House as a whole feels that, on this question of what the hon. Member calls a Cuba matter, the result achieved was one which maintained the peace of the world without endangering its freedom.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST JULY—Debate on the Ninth Report, 1961–62, and the Fifth Special Report, 1962–63, from the Estimates Committee relating to Naval Dockyards.
At seven o'clock, private Members' Motions.
Motions on the Tuberculosis (Extension of Payments Period) Orders for England and Wales and for Scotland, and the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme.
TUESDAY, 2ND JULY, and WEDNESDAY, 3RD JULY—A two-day debate will take place on Foreign Affairs.
The Government are allocating one day and the Opposition propose, if the House agrees, that an allotted Supply day shall be taken formally.
At the end on Wednesday, Motion on the Parking Places (Scotland) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.
There will be a debate on Scottish Housing on the Votes.
Motion on the Import Duties (General) (No. 4) Order.
FRIDAY, 5TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords].
MONDAY, 8TH JULY—The proposed business will be: Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee, when the subject will be Housing and Urban Land Prices.
Motion on the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will, in the fairly near future, want to debate the question of Southern Rhodesia? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary, on his return from the conference at Victoria Falls, the desirability of his making a full and urgent statement on the results of the conference, and on the whole question of Southern Rhodesia, so that the House can debate the matter with the fullest possible information that the First Secretary can give us?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary would be


willing to do that, and I will, of course, take into account what has been said about a debate. There is a possibility—and, perhaps, more than a possibility—that we might have to bring legislation before the House before the end of the Session.

Mr. Turton: Following my question last week about the possibility of a debate on Commonwealth trade and the G.A.T.T. negotiations, can my right hon. Friend now say whether, out of either Opposition time on Supply days, or out of Government time, there will be a debate on these important matters, on which early day Motions have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides, and widely supported?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend has made his point about Supply days; he knows that the responsibility for their allocation lies with the Opposition. As to Government time, he will realise from the letter I sent him that I did not make any firm promise, but that I have undertaken to consider the important case he makes with those of the other claimants for time during the remaining weeks of the Session.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the foreign affairs debate, the Government spokesmen will state the Government's proposals about the mixed-manned multilateral force? Do the Government propose to present their views on that force to the House during the debate?

Mr. Macleod: Not in the sense that any final conclusions would be announced to the House, but no doubt the subject will come into that debate. The form of the debate is a matter for the Chair, but I understand that the debate each day would probably be taken on the Adjournment, and it might be convenient for the House if the debate on one of the days concentrated on foreign affairs generally and the other generally on defence, although, naturally, if the debates are taken on the Adjournment this is a matter for hon. Members themselves.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Leader of the House aware that we welcome his statement that there is not to be any final decision, or commitment, if it is the one that some of us fear may be in

the Government's mind; and that it is highly desirable that the Government should hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on this question before coming to any decision or commitment?
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to lay down any rules about the form of the debate, but does he not realise that, in present circumstances, it is almost impossible to divide the debate in the way that he has suggested? For example, if we want to talk about disarmament, or proposals far the ban on the spread of nuclear weapons and an anti-proliferation agreement, or if we want to talk about East-West relations in general, or the possibility of a nuclear test ban, it is impossible to divorce from those matters the question of nuclear arms for Germany, and the multilateral force which involves some German participation.
Would the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, think again, and, perhaps, have consultations with a view to its being a general debate on both days, because we simply cannot break up the subjects in the way that he suggests?

Mr. Macleod: I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and, in so far as we can be of help to the House, by all means let us have consultations, but I made the point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred that, subject to the ordinary rules, if the debate is to take place on the Adjournment the form is a matter for the House. But we would wish to meet the convenience of the House by, for example, having speakers like the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister of Defence, if they are to speak in the debate, at the appropriate stages of the two-day debate. I think that consultations on things like that could be helpful.

Captain Orr: As the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure is not to be taken tonight, can my right hon. Friend say when it will be taken, and will he bear in mind his promise to take it at a reasonable hour of the day?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot say when it will be taken—it is not Government business. All I can do is to try to be helpful


to the House, because this is a matter that many hon. Members regard as of great importance, and try to see that it comes on at a reasonable hour. I cannot be more precise than that. I would hope to find a suitable opportunity in, say, the next two or three weeks.

Mr. M. Foot: What does the Leader of the House propose to do about the Motion that appears on the Order Paper in my name, expressing disapproval of the fact that the Leader of the House in another place should, in a debate there, have made imputations against the conduct of business in this House?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this is a separate question from that of the exchange of letters with Mr. Speaker, which, we were told, was to be discussed through the usual channels, and that my Motion would not take much time because it would be accepted by the whole House, which recognises the need to maintain the rights of this House? Why, therefore, has not the Leader of the House announced in his business statement that we will have a short debate on this Motion next week?

[That this House deplores the fact that Lord Hailsham should, in a personal statement on 20th June, have made imputations as to the way in which business is conducted in the House of Commons.]

Mr. Macleod: I should not have thought that the two matters are quite as separate as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has suggested. On the second, and perhaps more important, matter, some consultations have taken place. I have no proposal for finding time for the hon. Member's Motion.

Sir H. D'Avigdor-Goldsmid: May I remind my right hon. Friend that nearly two years have gone by since my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence, then Minister of Aviation, promised early legislation on the establishment of an authority to deal with the international airports of England? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this would be an agreeable and relatively uncontroversial matter to include in the legislative programme which he is surely thinking about?

Mr. Macleod: I am certainly thinking about the legislative programme, but it does not concern next week's business.

Mr. Wigg: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about his Motion, and our exchanges yesterday, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility that the action of the Leader of another place may have been in contravention of Article IX of the Bill of Rights?

Mr. Macleod: I have not had that point drawn to my attention. I am quite ready to look at it.

Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to Monday's debate on naval dockyards, may I ask my right hon Friend whether he can say when time can be found to debate the Rochdale Report on the docks?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir, but there is an undertaking that it will be debated before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Miss Herbison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Parking Places (Scotland) Order designates places in the Midlands and the south of England where work may be found by some of our 90,000 unemployed for whom the Government have so miserably failed to find work in their own country?

Mr. Macleod: I doubt even the ingenuity of the hon. Lady to get that point in the debate.

Mr. F. Harris: As my right hon. Friend knows, many of us have been expecting any day now a statement by the Colonial Secretary on the outcome of his discussions with Mr. Mboya and the Kenya Government delegation who have been over here. Can my right hon. Friend say why it has not been made and when it will be made?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will certainly be making a statement at an early date—I think within the period of the business which I have announced.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the House has been promised a White Paper on defence. Can he say when that will be published and will a debate take place


before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Sir. Macleod: I cannot give an undertaking about that. It is a possibility.

Mr. Loughlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry is likely to face serious difficulties at the end of this year? Is he also aware that his right hon. Friend is initiating a European conference of the fishing industry countries? Could the House have an opportunity of discussing the whole of the fishing industry of this country before that conference takes place?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot see an early opportunity for that. I certainly agree about its importance, but we are concerned with business for a fairly limited period before the House.

Mr. Pavitt: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will find time to discuss their own 10-year plan for the development of the health and welfare services? Is he aware that in the event of an autumn election it is not unlikely that the Conservative Party will wish to put this in its programme and that it is desirable, therefore, that the House should discuss it before we rise for the Recess?

Mr. Macleod: I am not very enthusiastic about finding time to discuss election manifestoes.

Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in announcing next week's business, has not given a date, about which there was a reasonably firm promise, on which we could discuss the future of the House and accommodation for hon. Members. In view of the fact that we probably

have a week or two for him to consider it in collaboration with the Minister of Public Building and Works, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper to show hon. Members the kind of things which are contemplated for their convenience in future? Will the right hon. Gentleman do this, particularly bearing in mind that the scheme for building above the Chamber is to start this summer and that work on the precincts is to start next year, and that it is as well that the House when consulted should know what it is talking about?

Mr. Macleod: That is an admirable proposition. I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend. It may well be that we can find a convenient way of giving information to the House before the debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not the House be handicapped in the debate on defence by the fact that there is not a Secretary of State for War? [Hon. Members: "There is."] Who is he?

Mr. H. Wilson: While my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is obviously a little behind the times in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the transfer of the Minister of State from the Foreign Office—the only Minister, as far as we know, who has departmental responsibility for disarmament—to become Secretary of State for War means that there will be no Minister available to the House next week to talk about the important question of disarmament?

Mr. Macleod: I am not sure whether this is in order, but I must say that I do not think that that follows.

Orders of the Day — PEERAGE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(DISCLAIMER OF CERTAIN HEREDITARY PEERAGES.)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "for his life".

The Chairman: It will be possible for the Committee also to discuss, at the same time, the Amendments in Clause 3, page 3, line 33, after "person", add "his heirs and descendants"; in line 33, after "wife", add "and his heirs"; in line 37, after "him", add "and his heirs"; in page 3, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert:
and
(c) to extinguish that peerage".
and in the Title, line 1, leave out "for life".

Mr. Wade: Two of the Amendments which you have named, Sir William, in page 3, line 33, after "wife" add "and his heirs" and in line 37, after "him", add "and his heirs" are consequential and I will discuss these three Amendments together. As you have indicated, there are other Amendments on the Notice Paper which may also be considered in the debate.
The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is to provide that where there is a disclaimer it will be not only for life, but for all time, that is to say, the person disclaiming will disclaim not only for himself, but for his heirs. I should like to make clear that I am primarily concerned with the composition of the Legislature. The question whether there should be hereditary titles is another matter.
It is true that Clause 3 indirectly deals with the retention of hereditary titles, but I am concerned about Parliament and who should have the right to sit in Parliament. I intend to direct my attention to the right, or some might call it the duty, to accept a seat in the Upper House and what should happen if an

individual disclaims, as he will have the power to do under the Bill.
I am expressing my personal opinion, and it is in line with the views which I expressed in the Select Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words by way of preface. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order in so doing, because I think that it has a bearing on the Amendment.
On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) argued the case for a second Chamber. I thought that he did so very convincingly. There is a strong case for a second Chamber, although opinions may differ on how it should be composed and whether the principle of selection or election should be applied. It may be said that the present House of Lords is already endeavouring to perform the functions of a second Chamber, although, obviously, it is working under considerable difficulties.
Walter Bagehot said, in "The English Constitution":
A severe though not unfriendly critic of our institutions said that the cure for admiring the House of Lords was to go and look at it.
I do not know that that is altogether fair today, although, I hasten to add, I am referring to proceedings in the other place and not to appearances on television.
I have some sympathy for those who work in the other place, especially when they are dealing with the London Government Bill. But this adds point to the case for a radical reform of the House of Lords. It seems to me that the need for some radical reform is increasingly apparent, and this Bill in no way meets that need.
Sooner or later, there will have to be reform. I hope that, when it comes, the method of replenishment will be fairer and more representative than it is now. Whatever the nature of the reform may be, whatever the future constitution of a second Chamber may be, whatever new ideas are adopted, it is inconceivable that any new constitution would include a provision whereby a very limited number of families—and we are dealing with a very limited number—would have the exceptional privilege, generation by generation, of being entitled to choose whether the heir should take his seat as of right in the Upper


House or disclaim and stand for election to the House of Commons.
I myself find it impossible to justify a system whereby anyone has a right to a seat in the Legislature solely by reason of birth. But, putting that on one side for the moment, I think it most unlikely that, if reform were to take place, any new constitution would incorporate the idea of being in or out generation by generation. This is a factor to be borne in mind in our consideration of the Bill.
I am anxious that we should study the Bill carefully and have it in the right perspective. The object of the Amendment is to provide that, where a peer or one succeeding to a peerage disclaims, this should be not merely for life but for his heirs. But only a very small minority of persons will be affected. To all intents and purposes, this is a Wedgwood Benn enabling Bill, and the question is whether Mr. Wedgwood Benn and others should disclaim for themselves and their heirs or retain for future heirs the right to go back to the House of Lords.
In seeking an answer, one must try to find some principles. There are people who believe quite sincerely that someone succeeding to a peerage does not acquire a privilege, but accepts a responsibility, a duty, which should not be turned down. I recognise that, although I must point out that there are some peers who do not take that duty and responsibility very seriously.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the hon. Gentleman enunciating that it really is the practical policy of the Liberal Party that the whole 1,100, in performance of their duty, should pack the barracks in another place and proceed to legislate in a mass "Committee of 1,100".

Mr. Wade: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient and listen, he will understand that I am advocating precisely the opposite.
I am trying to be fair and I am saying that I recognise that there are some who take the view that it is a responsibility, not a privilege. However, those who take this view are not justified in opposing the Amendment. Anyone who takes the view that an heir to a peerage has a duty must not shirk opposing the

Bill as a whole. It is not for me to say what hon. Members should do, but the logical course would be to object to any form of disclaimer. I feel that that particular line of argument is irrelevant to the issue which I am raising by the Amendment.
There is a less serious argument which I have encountered. I do not think that it was raised in the Select Committee, but I have heard it since and, perhaps, it is only right to mention it. It is sometimes said that, if the proposal in the Amendment were accepted, and if there were a right to disclaim not only for oneself but for one's heirs, there might be peers who, not because they wished to stand for the House of Commons but merely in order to "do down" their heirs, because of personal antipathy towards their heirs or because of some family differences, might disclaim.
I do not know whether that is really likely to arise, but, surely, the answer is that, if an heir is, in fact, worthy of a seat in Parliament, we should be able to devise a system whereby he will have a reasonable chance of finding his way either into the Upper House or into the Lower House on merit, not because of birth. I do not think that we need pursue that argument about doing down one's heirs.
I suppose that there is the reverse argument, that some individual might accept a peerage solely to ensure that his eldest son would become a peer, while, at the same time, making sure that he was penniless and, therefore, embarrassed by the title. Again, this is not a very serious line of argument.

Sir Douglas Glover: That cannot arise in this context, because the Bill does not apply to peers of first creation.

Mr. Wade: No, it does not apply to peers of first creation, but it could happen in the future.
The points I have made so far lead me to a proposition which has an important bearing on the Amendment. It is certainly something which has carried great weight with me in coming to a conclusion. When an individual accepts a hereditary peerage—I am not talking about a life peerage—he acts for himself and his descendants. Perhaps he will


have the chance of consulting his eldest son. Conceivably, he might consult his grandson. But it is clear that he acts on behalf of himself and his future heirs, and that, with the possible exception of a son, he accepts the peerage and commits his heirs without their being consulted.
There is nothing illogical in applying the same principle to a disclaimer. For this reason, I think it preferable that, where there is a disclaimer, the peerage should be extinguished and the disclaimer should not apply only for life.
In the Second Reading debate reference was made to the need for preserving the hereditary principle. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) spoke in those terms. It all depends on what is meant by the hereditary principle. Many characteristics are inherited, and there are occasions when a sense of public duty is inherited, but it does not necessarily follow that it is inherited by the eldest son, the younger brother or the cousin, as the case may be. I would like to see a revival of the idea of winning one's spurs, and to see the elder son showing an interest in public life and following in the footsteps of his father, but I do not see why he should automatically inherit a seat in Parliament.
That is the consideration which applies here. It is for those reasons that I have come to the conclusion that if there is to be a disclaimer it should be for all time. If the Amendment is defeated I shall not vote against the Bill. I supported Mr. Wedgwood Benn in his plea, and I wish to see him enabled to stand again for this House if he wishes to do so. But in weighing up the argument, which I have done very carefully, on balance I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely in favour of a disclaimer for all time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in his interpretation of the effect of the Amendment. It seems to me that if these words were left out the Amendment would have the effect of providing that a peer who disclaimed was at that moment disinherited, so that the whole peerage would pass to his heir at the

moment he disinherited himself. That is the sense in which my hon. Friends who have put their names to the Amendment understood would be the effect.

Mr. Wade: At the outset of my argument I said that the Amendment ought to be considered together with certain Amendments to Clause 3. If they are read together they will have the effect—at least it is intended that they shall—of disclaiming for all time. I do not think that they will have the effect which the hon. Member has just mentioned.

Mr. Ridley: That may be so, but it is quite fair to argue that the other possible interpretation is the right one. I believe that an hereditary peerage is not a thing which belongs to the person—something which can be taken up and dropped, or killed in this way. For whatever it may be worth, it seems to me that it is an institution of which the holder is only a tenant for his lifetime. If he is not able to fulfil the obligations and responsibilities, and to enjoy the privileges, of that institution—because, for instance, he may wish to come to this House—he should be able to disclaim it and pass it on to his next heir at the moment.
Although these responsibilities are vestigial, and these advantages are probably very small, in some cases they are real, and it would be a pity simply to take the point of view that a peerage can lapse or be killed for ever. I am, therefore, against both the sense of the Bill and of the Amendment. I would prefer to see it provided that on the disclaimer of an individual the peerage should pass immediately to the next heir.
We have a very sound parallel in the case of the monarchy. We know that if a monarch, for any reason, wishes not to accept the position, upon his abdication the monarchy immediately passes to the nearest heir. That seems to me to be the right principle to follow in this case. It is unthinkable that the monarchy should cease to exist during the lifetime of somebody who inherits it, or, equally, that somebody who inherits it can drown it for his lifetime.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Does not the hon. Member agree that there is no possible parallel between the two cases? A peerage is something which can become extinguished. The monarchy


is in a totally different category. The two institutions are not analogous.

Mr. Ridley: I do not agree with that line of thought. In recent times peerages have often been allowed to lapse and become extinct, but that does not mean that they all become extinct. It is possible for other people to inherit those peerages, or to be given peerages which have become extinct.
I am sure that this is the right principle. My only complaint against the Bill is that it seems to treat hereditary peerage as though it were of little importance, and as though it could be immediately waved aside by an individual who could opt to keep it for his heirs although he would not have to exercise the responsibilities himself.

Mr. Hale: Surely the hon. Member is not asserting that the abdication of Edward VIII had some national consequences that were not envisaged at the time by the constitutional lawyers. Has he obtained the opinion of the heirs of James II on this somewhat curious proposition?

Mr. Ridley: I do not intend to go back into history of that sort, but I still believe that this is the right principle to follow. For that reason, although I cannot support the Amendment, I agree with my hon. Friends whose later Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, to leave out lines 41 and 42 and to insert:
and the succession shall take effect as though he had died on the completion of his disclaimer",
ties up with this one.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Not surprisingly, I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I support the Amendment. I also welcome the Bill, restricted though it is in scope. I do so because it will enable Anthony Wedgwood Benn to stand again for election to this House, and also gives us the prospect of bringing back the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, to add to the gaiety of the House and to the troubles of his party.
Unlike the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I support the Amendment because it carries the gradual liquidation of the hereditary

principle one stage further. I should like to see this process accelerated to a diminishing point, and to see it done not in easy stages but at one fell swoop. I hope that the Government will accept this very modest Amendment.
During the Second Reading debate there was some discussion about the question of titles. Many noble Lords were a little anxious what the position would be in this respect. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that it does not matter what these people call themselves, or what anybody else calls them, within reason. To a certain extent, all prefixes are courtesy titles. The titles of "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss", "Esquire" and all other prefixes of that kind are courtesy titles when reduced to rational considerations. There is no reason for any noble Lord in this House who wishes to perpetuate those titles to be worried. The Dukes of Omnium and Plaza-Toro can continue to be so called.
What I do think important—this is the nub of the whole matter—is the consideration that once a peerage is disclaimed or renounced the heir should not be able to claim the hereditary right to legislate and sit in the House of Lords. This seems to me a really important and vital matter with which the Amendment is concerned. To me, it is a wholly unjustified claim that, by accident of birth, a man—or now a woman—can take part in the legislature of the country as a sort of divine right. To me, that seems wholly indefensible.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West spoke about the succession and the fact that the first-born should automatically assume these responsibilities and duties, the first-born, or, as a right hon. Member once said in this House, "the first of the litter". It seems to me that hereditary principle is an archaic survival, as archaic, indeed, as the rotten boroughs were in an earlier century. It has absolutely no place whatever in modern life. It is said sometimes that it does not matter now, it is not really very important, now that the teeth and the claws of the House of Lords have been extracted and that their Lordships have been deprived of most of their powers and, therefore, it is not a matter of great concern.
But I put it to hon. Members that, although we realise that these powers


have been diminished, their Lordships still have the authority of a second Chamber. They have the prestige of a second Chamber. They have the authority of a revising Chamber and, of course, they have a national platform, which is very important. They still provide for hon. Members of the party opposite an overwhelming permanent majority in one part of the Legislature, and they still have the veto. However, many arguments may be used against it, the veto is still there and can be operated decisively, possibly at a critical moment in the life of a Government. That is a very important consideration.
In his book on this matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) says that the fact that there has been no repetition of what he calls the peers 1909 behaviour owes more to a change of political climate than to the legal provisions of the Parliament Act. That change of climate arises from the fact, as he points out, that they singed and burned their fingers over the Finance Bill of 1909—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lady. But I hope that she will bear in mind that in relation to the Amendments which we are discussing, the Question is whether the words "for his life" shall stand part of the Clause. It does not go wider.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I bow to your Ruling, Sir William. I am sorry that I strayed. Perhaps it was my hereditary prejudices which carried me away.
I conclude by saying that I support the Bill wholeheartedly because I believe that any Measure, however restrictive, which undermines the hereditary principle on which the House of Lords is still based is much to be commended.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I understand that we are discussing together two Clauses, both designed for the same purpose, one perhaps being more effective than the other. If, therefore, it were understood that if I say anything by way of approbation it relates to the Clause in the name—[Hon. Members: "The Amendment."]—the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, and if I say anything in the

way of disapprobation it applies to the Amendment in the name of hon. Members of the Liberal Party, it would save a good deal of adverse interruption.

Mr. Wade: rose—

The Chairman: Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to tell me exactly to which Amendment he is speaking?

Mr. Hale: I was referring to the Amendment to Clause 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, diligently listening to the debate. I was informed that that was also being considered.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is entitled to do that.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to you, Sir William—

Mr. Wade: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). But would he enlighten me? Would he be good enough to say how the Amendment of which he approves differs from the Amendment which I moved and of which he disapproves?

Mr. Hale: I had not intended to follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr.Ridley). I heard him say that he did not think that the Amendment meant it. Assuming the possibility—although hon. Members may think it an improbability—of an hon. Member opposite being right, I am convinced that the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend does mean it, so I give it my modest, cautious and almost reluctant blessing. My reluctance does not arise from the Amendment. I had the privilege of being a member of that remarkable Select Committee. It was a pleasant Committee on which to serve and I learned a great deal from the distinguished Members who constituted it. We worked together very happily.
It should be remembered by hon. Members—I wish that the House of Commons would remember it sometimes—that a Select Committee works rather on the principle of a sausage machine. First, the


shape of the sausage is dictated by the Committee's terms of reference. It does not matter what people may have in mind on the subject. If the terms of reference are limited, the size of the sausage which comes out is completely constricted by those terms of reference.
Secondly, and much more unhappily, the cutter and sewer drops regularly at intervals. One cannot vote on a full Clause; one votes on half a Clause. One votes on the proposition that someone shall have the right to surrender something and one is tied by that before deciding how much he can surrender and how much he cannot, and on that one is voted down. The procedure is a little inhibiting to those of us who have views which we regard as serious on any subject, and views on the hereditary peerage principle which involves the acceptance of biological principles which have no known validity.
A curious mythology which permeates the thinking of people, the idea that peerages are based on old families, is nonsense. I think that it was Disraeli who said that since the Battle of Tewkesbury, or at that battle, a Norman baron was as rare in England as a wolf.
Since then we have had a great deal happening. One of the peculiarities of George III was the lucidity of his intervals. It is said that one of the most distinguished names in nobility is that of Percy, but the family has been extinct since 1742. It was said that the title continued because of a statutory direction for its transmission to someone of another and much less noble name. When the Earl of Northumberland, on his knees before George III, was asking for and being refused the Garter, he said that it was the first time that a Northumberland had been refused the Garter. King George III replied that it was the first time the Garter had been asked for by a smith's son.
George III showed his own appreciation of the importance of the peerage and its value to the community when he told an applicant that he could not give him permission to use Horse Guards Parade. The place was fully already, and it had always been a privilege to use Horse Guards Parade. But if he liked, and to save the fellow from being annoyed by his refusal, he would make him an Irish peer.
That is the position and it is rather a question whether these are the apt qualifications for a legislator. However, I know that if I pursued that subject very far you, Sir William, would say that I was getting a little beyond the immediate ambit of one or other of the six Amendments which we are discussing, and to keep in order is difficult when one is not sure which all the six are.
My trouble about the Bill is this. I want to support my right hon. Friends. I want to abide by such agreements as we made, although we did not agree anything. We were voted down on precisely the proposition which we are now discussing, and on other matters. I was voted down on one matter, too. But it is as well that the country and the House should know two things. The first is that this report is called the Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. I objected strongly to that title and wrote to the Chancellor asking him not to use it, because we were not discussing House of Lords reform.
I personally wished that we had been. The terms of reference did not permit us to discuss House of Lords reform. They permitted us to discuss virtually the single question of renunciation of a peerage and its consequences and to whom it should be applied and one of two consequent references to Scottish peeresses. I do not particularly want to see the hereditary peeresses in the House of Lords, but as one who has always believed in sex equality I could not resist that; there was no argument to make against it.
We were, therefore, limited to the question of renunciation, and we are now dealing with a Bill which gives immense new privileges to the House of Lords. I have in mind a picture of my old Parliamentary friend, "Charlie" White, who used to fight the Duke of Devonshire or his nominees in the West Derbyshire election, not only on principle, but with a deep-seated and basic antipathy to the power of dukes. That was not in any way associated with the present noble holder of the title, but he always regarded himself as something of a Hampden tilting at the powers of Devonshire.
We are considering a Bill under which any Duke of Devonshire can resign his title, fight West Derbyshire, a large part of which he owns anyhow, and pass the


title by transmission to his eldest son. Speaking as a solicitor, if he used the period for simultaneous transmission of the estate, it would make the problems of dealing with Estate Duty and Income Tax a little easier and qualify His Grace later, when we have introduced our reforms, for a House of Lords pension for his services in legislation.
That is a vast additional privilege, and if I have quoted an unlikely instance—I hope that it is unlikely—may I say that I am surprised that in reference to recent events, the name of the distinguished noble Lord who led the Conservative peers in the Committee of which I was a member has not been mentioned. Suppose that the Marquess of Salisbury, with his great ability and, I think, great sincerity—I have a high regard for him from the limited acquantance that I had with him during the Committee's deliberations—opted for the opportunity of resigning his title, coming here and becoming Conservative Prime Minister—the electoral processes make this a little less likely—and then, when he concluded his stint, he advised Her Majesty to make him Marquess of Salisbury again. [Interruption.] We have not reached that stage. We are discussing this Amendment and five others. It may be that the Bill says that he cannot become Marquess of Salisbury again, but the Bill is not passed yet. After all, if he is in that job he can introduce another Bill.
As I say, these are vast privileges and Bagehot, who, heaven knows, was an authority, said that the great dukes were a great power in their own country on their estates but were only washpots in the politics of Westminster and that a humble Parliamentary Secretary had more power at Westminster than the great landed gentry. Of course, even the present "Minister of Football, Myxomatosis and the North-East" takes precedence as Lord President over every Duke.
I am reminded of the late Queen Victoria, who was very concerned with matters of precedent rather than etiquette. When she saw the Duke of Hamilton coming in before Lord Granville, who was Lord President of the Council, she summonded Lord Granville to her and said, "Why did you permit the premier duke to take pre-

cedence over you in my presence?", and he said simply, "Ma'm, because I cannot run like a lamplighter".
Since I have introduced the problem of the Duke of Hamilton, may I refer to a second important point. The Duke of Hamilton, a very noble title indeed, is also the Duke of Brandon in England and the Duke of Chatelherault in France, three premier titles. The title of Duke of Chatelherault was reconferred by Louis Napoleon when he became emperor and purported to renew a title conferred in 1459, although I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the date.
It was said that the title of the Duke of Hamilton would have to be abandoned, but that the French dukedom would not have to be surrendered. Although a constitutional authority of the day said that the then present Duke of Hamilton, not being a direct descendant as heir male or "heir female" had no more right to the 1459 title than he had to the throne of China, the title was conferred and has been transmitted. A Duke of Hamilton's son sat with distinction in the House of Commons comparatively recently.

Mr. J. Grimond: Since the hon. Member was a member of the Committee, I wonder whether he can help me. Am I right in thinking that Lord Salisbury, apart from his hereditary title, is also a peer of the first creation? If so, he would not be entitled, would he, to renounce his peerage and, therefore, is not one of the contenders for the leadership of the Conservative Party in the House? Am I right about that?

Mr. Hale: I am not sure about the title of the Marquess of Salisbury. The amount of time that I have devoted to studying titles is comparatively limited and I speak with hesitation.
I was recalling that one holder of the ducal title of Hamilton used to sign himself with an abbreviation of all three titles. It is recorded by no less an authority than G. W. E. Russell that the Duke who received a reply from the local grocer addressed to Messrs. Ham, Chat and Bran, "Dear Sirs", was nearly afflicted by apoplexy. If my old friend Tom Macpherson is still in the wholesale grocery business, the present Duke can buy his groceries from a peer without any fear of errors of title, taste, precedence, and so on, being committed.
We are discussing a Bill which permits a peer to have it both ways. He can sit in the House of Lords and he can—we see it going on at this moment—negotiate for a seat in the House of Commons while he sits in the Lords. I know that there will be a limit on the time of surrender, which is a wise provision, and I am glad that that was recommended, but for the moment this is the situation. He can then stand for election to the Commons. He can have the great privilege of being a Member of the House of Commons—and it is a great privilege—and can hold in reserve for his eldest son or his heir all the privileges and titles which remain in abeyance.
I agree with my right hon. Friends that that is going too far, and I hope that at some time today we will be given the opportunity of registering our views on this issue in the Division Lobby.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I would not have intervened but for the speech to which we have just listened. I hesitate to correct the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on his historical knowledge, but as, in his speech, probably without knowing it, he happened to refer to an ancestor of mine, perhaps I had better try quickly to put the record correct.
The gentleman to whom the hon. Member referred on Horse Guards Parade was an ancestor of my mother's. The myth has grown up that he asked for an ivory pass to go through Horse Guards Arch, not to go on the Parade, and was told by, I believe, Mr. Pitt that he could not do that and that it would be easier to give him an Irish peerage than an ivory pass.
The reason for that was that Horse Guards Arch was one of the entrances from the private park of the King—St. James's Park—into the Royal Palace of Whitehall and there were then three gateways: one at what is now Horse Guards Avenue, another across Whitehall and the other leading into the King's private park. It was a Royal Palace and the gate of the Palace was guarded. That was why one had to have an ivory pass to use it.

Mr. Hale: There are two separate accounts. One is found in Russell and another, I think, in Walpole, and there

is one in the Ancient Manuscripts Commission. It is a story which still has an element of dubiety about the precise details, although it seems to have considerable validity in its general factual content.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I suppose that we can say that however erudite the source, sometimes even the most erudite can make mistakes based on gossip. A good deal of that was probably based on the sort of tittle-tattle in which the House of Commons sometimes indulges from time to time. So much for the historical side.
I make only one comment on the Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the Report certainly did not deal with the reform of the House of Lords in the true sense of the term. My feeling is that until the House of Commons one day agrees that we should consider what powers a second Chamber should have, we shall never make sense on this matter. My approach will always be: what powers are necessary to enable a bicameral system to work effectively and who should have those powers? Until we appreciate the matter in this way, we shall go on having these pathetic fiddlings with the structure without getting down to the root of the matter, which is how to make Parliament work efficiently.
I know that some are unicameralists, but I am a bicameralist and I should like to see both Houses working as effectively as possible. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is right in saying that we are here conferring a privilege. I grant that some people consider the privilege not to be a divine right, as the noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) said, but as something utterly hellish. Some people would be delighted to exercise the privilege of getting rid of what they find so unpleasant in prospect, if not in practice.
The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the privilege even wider, and that is a very good reason for opposing the Amendment.

Miss Jennie Lee: There is an irresistible comic opera element in debates of this kind and I would be


the last Member of the House of Commons to object to it. Every other argument having gone, I think that, finally, the other place will simply be laughed out of existence by the common sense of the people if we in the House of Commons do not begin to act as contemporaries.
I support both Amendments and, in doing so, I should like to give a friendly word of warning to any Members of the other place who contemplate joining us. It is only fair for them to be alerted to the fact that the Labour and Liberal benches in this House feel strongly about the absurdity of the limitations placed upon our debates today. We will keep within those limitations, but there can be no doubt that it is only a matter of a year or two at most before there will be further legislation before the House of Commons. It is quite inconceivable, if the House of Commons is to do its duty in a contemporary fashion, that we will not stop playing around with the absurdity of a Member of the other place being able to surrender a title for a period of his lifetime, or even shorter, and for that title once again to go back to his heirs.
In making that point, I am not talking in terms of personal spleen. There are heirs to great peerages who are young men, or even older men, of great personal distinction and with a training in public service. There are, however, many young men and older men whose background is not a noble house, but is another kind of noble house and have been brought up in a farm worker's or a miner's cottage, or in a lawyer's or a teacher's home. If one goes from top to bottom of the structure of our society, one finds that there are those people who add lustre to the nation. Therefore, I would be the last to decry the principle of noblesse oblige.
I merely say that we should stop the pretence that there is a special section of the community which inherits that kind of attitude either to public affairs or to anything else. If the historians, for instance, want to make a realistic estimate of the noble houses in the year 1963, they would get an enormous amount of information by studying the proceedings in our divorce courts. I

would much rather leave it to the wit and agility of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
I should hate to embarrass the House of Commons with any indelicate references, but you and I, Sir William, have Scottish antecedents and I was brought up on Tom Johnston's "Our Noble Families". We are very well informed as to the origins of many of our Scottish houses. We know just how they ascended and how far they have descended. We know that some of them have made praiseworthy efforts to refresh their stock by marrying in very different spheres.
I am not, however, making any general indictment about any group in society, whatever its background. I am only saying that we should start being grown-up and sensible. Let us start making it more and more possible for the élite, in the best sense of the word, among our younger men and women to do public service in this House or elsewhere, but let us stop pretending that there is even one reason left why, because a young man or, in these days, a young woman is the son or daughter of his or her father, they should have any special preference.
There is another matter which we must consider. At Question Time today we were asking for information about the facilities of our own House. I shall not go out of order, Sir William; my reference is only slight. It is simply to say that before we in the House of Commons engage on considerable future expense that will not add to the beauty of this building, we ought to make a serious survey of the possibilities of getting rid of the other place and so giving us room in which to do our work. I know that I am now out of order and I will say no more about that.

The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Lady—I know that she is well aware of it—that it is impossible to proceed on her argument when dealing with this group of Amendments, on which the Question is whether the words "for his life" should stand part of the Clause.

Miss Lee: I accept that correction, Sir William, but it is only fair to point out that in the very near future we will be dealing not only with "for his life" in the strict sense of referring to an


individual peer. I am profoundly convinced that it will be for "for his life" involving the whole of the other place. If there are many of us in the House of Commons who take that view, we should be looking forward as well as backward and trying to assess how we can build up both the physical and every other aspect of our surroundings here to make a representative chamber to do the job that contemporary society needs doing.
I support both Amendments. I support the Bill reluctantly. I should be very glad indeed to see my friend Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn back in this House. I doubt whether we should see many more members of another place back here, because I think that most of them, even those who are most politically conscious, are well aware of the validity of what I am saying—that if they do come into this House, they will find, having given up their peerages for their lifetime, that the spirit of the age will see to it that they are not permitted to play fast and loose with our Constitution and the common sense of our people.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) complained about the limitation of our discussion. I cannot refrain from pointing out that it is through no fault of ours, because my hon. Friend on the Joint Committee which studied the so-called House of Lords reform moved an Amendment which would very much have widened the discussion, and we might then have been considering a Measure which went a long way to meet some of the points which the hon. Member for Cannock has made.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely spoke of "pathetic fiddling". That is really all that one can say about the Bill. But we have to make the best of it and discuss it as it stands. We, for our part, are trying to improve it wherever possible, and we believe that our Amendment is a very distinct improvement. We have said all along that we do not agree with the idea of hereditary peerages, and although this goes only a very small way towards doing away with them, it is at least a step in the right direction.
I must, in passing, say that it gave me a shock when I noticed that three Conservative names were attached to our Amendment. For a ghastly moment, I thought we had made a mistake in the wording which meant that our Amendment was in a very different sense from what we had intended. But we understand the position now. We appreciate the reasons why the names were attached to the Amendment. They have been explained to us by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). The hon. Member did us a service in making quite clear the distinction between the two points of view on this question.
I want to add only a few words on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) touched on the reasoning behind our Amendment and dealt with it very thoroughly. The distinction is between those of us who wish to see the hereditary principle weakened, as we are seeking to do in the Amendment, and those on the other hand who are cunningly trying to strengthen the hereditary principle under the guise of reform. Let us make no mistake about it; the hereditary principle would be strengthened if we accepted the proposals in the Bill as it stands—that is, if we decided that, whatever other concessions we are to make to a reluctant peer, we shall not allow him to divest himself of the nobility which some hon. Members opposite think he carries in his blood.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury made this clear, saying that a peerage is not something which belongs to a person but is an institution of which a person is only the tenant for his lifetime. That means that it is something supernatural with which we mere mortals are never entitled to interfere in the slightest degree. If one accepted his argument, one would have the hereditary system for ever more—

Mr. Ridley: Surely that is a very strange argument. Would the hon. Gentleman say that a house was something supernatural? There can be a tenant for a house or anything else. The point that I was making was that the peerage comes back to somebody.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: A house does not last for ever, and it has not a seat in the


Legislature. Also, there is not a supernatural mark which distinguishes one house from all the rest.
What the hon. Member is saying is that there is some supernatural mark which distinguishes certain members of our community who happen to be the possessors or heirs of hereditary peerages. That is the difference between us. We would not make any bones about this. This difference will, I hope, be on non-party lines. I do not think that this is a party political question, although it is, of course, a political one.
I hope that when we come to the vote on the Amendment, it will be entirely free and no pressure will be exercised on hon. Members opposite to persuade them to oppose the Amendment. Considering that we have had a number of Conservative names attached to our Amendment and that hon. Members opposite have spoken in favour of it—from different motives, I agree—I think that we might succeed in passing the Amendment, although I do not know what would happen if the later Amendments tabled by ourselves and hon. Members opposite were rejected, for we should then have deleted the words "for his life" from Clause 1, but retained other words in Clause 3 which would conflict with that.
I said when we discussed this on Second Reading that I believed that if it were put to a free vote of the House our proposals would be carried and that I was even more certain that if we were able to put the question to the electorate in general the result would be even more overwhelmingly in favour of extinguishing a peerage entirely when the temporary holder renounced it. Since then, I have been able to obtain some small confirmation of the opinion I expressed. I have had a small public opinion poll carried out in my constituency, and I think that the results of it may be of some interest to the Committee.
A total of 215 people were questioned. I agree that it is a small sample, but it is at least some evidence in favour of the truth of what I said on Second Reading. Of those questioned, 122 were in favour of abolishing hereditary titles altogether, and that is a bare majority of those questioned. But on the more limited

question now before us—whether a person renouncing a peerage should do so merely for his lifetime or should for the succeeding heirs as well—the number in favour of total extinction of the peerage was 142 and the number in favour of renouncing for life only was 73. The Committee will see that the majority of the 215 persons questioned favoured total extinction—a proportion of nearly 2:1.
It has been objected by hon. Members opposite—not on this occasion, but on Second Reading—and also in some of the representations made to the Joint Committee, that our proposals would involve some injustice to the heirs and descendants of the temporary holder who decided to renounce. In fact, Lord Hailsham put forward what I think is a rather curious argument, that, while it may be reasonable for a person to renounce as far as his own descendants are concerned, it would be quite unfair to allow him to do so for the more remote heirs as well.
I cannot see very much difference between the two cases, but I think that the second illustrates even more clearly how fatuous the reasoning is, because the succession of a remote relation who may not even realise before he succeeds that he will become the heir to a peerage reveals quite distinctly the capriciousness of the whole system.
I am reminded of Lord Lucky who
…by a curious fluke
Became a most important duke.
He rose in less than half an hour
To riches, dignity and power.
Belloc fans will remember that he achieved this rise to eminence through the sudden and violent deaths of several of the intervening heirs, one of whom was executed. The unfair treatment of potential heirs is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, about the only serious argument which has been advanced in favour of leaving things as they stand in the Bill.
On the other hand, as already explained, we have taken our stand on the question of principle as to whether or not we should make some breach in the hereditary system, albeit a minor breach. Sooner or later, as the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has said, we shall have to undertake a much more radical consideration of the composition of the Upper House. I believe that, if


the Amendment is accepted, it will be of the greatest assistance in that difficult task.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If I rise, it is only for a few moments and not to make any remarks on this Amendment at all.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak unless his remarks are to be directed towards the Amendment.

Mr. Bennett: I apologise for that unfortunate lead-in, Sir William. Perhaps I might phrase my words more happily. While I am addressing myself to this Amendment, my thoughts will probably be on another one which comes a little later. I hope that that brings me within the bounds of order.
I think that I can speak here both for myself and for my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), whose names appear on the Amendment with mine. Our support for the Amendment is actually contingent on quite another part of the Bill. It is only fair to say that I, for one, could not support an Amendment which, as it stands, would drown a peerage altogether. That is the opposite of what I want.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order, Sir William. The hon. Gentleman is apparently opposed to an Amendment which bears his name. Is he in order in showing opposition to that which he has put before the Committee?

The Chairman: On reading the Amendment, I see that the name of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) is attached to it, and I understand that he is explaining how he views the situation of his name in connection with the Amendment. I do not think that is out of order.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Sir William. The hon. Gentleman has put his name to an Amendment. Is he allowed to vote against it?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is carrying the point of order

too far. This Amendment has been debated considerably, and it may well be that, in the light of the debate, an hon. Member's opinion may have been changed.

Mr. Mitchison: Therefore, the position is that, if an hon. Member changes his opinion in the course of debate, he can vote against an Amendment he himself supported on the Notice Paper?

The Chairman: Yes. It would be a sorry day if we debated without a hope of converting anyone.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Sir William, for coming to my aid and putting the case much more effectively than I could.
I was trying to point out, within the narrow rules of order, that one is in difficulty with a Bill of this nature, where a particular Amendment may well be contingent upon another Amendment which has not yet been discussed. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has often found himself in precisely the same predicament.
I want the words "for his life" left out because I believe that rather than drown the peerage it should go to the next heir at once in line. That is why, within the rules of order, I make that point clear, though I hope to take it further when we reach a later Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he intends to vote in favour of the Amendment?

Mr. Bennett: I propose to take the advice of the Chair, which is to listen to the rest of the debate and make up my mind then.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to make clear as briefly as I can where we on this side of the Committee—I think all of us—stand on this matter. This is a limited Bill. It is limited because of the terms of reference of the Select Committee. Those terms were limited because of the negotiations that went on, I think in public, across the Floor of the House. It is quite clear that we on this side are not prepared to consider a reform of the House of Lords, or a reform of its composition, unless we can also and, at the same time, consider the question of its powers.
It was because of that limitation that the terms of refence of the Committee were limited and that the Bill itself is limited. It does not, therefore, as I see it, raise any broad question of whether there should be one Chamber or two, or any broad question behind the hereditary principle. I think that I may fairly add this, since the hereditary principle is to some extent involved in the Amendment: we think that the hereditary principle is bunk.
We do not think that it has any foundation in scientific fact and that it has no merits as a principle on which to found a legislative assembly. Nor do we think in practice that it has worked for any other purpose than to ensure a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. For these reasons, I think that we are all of us on this side opposed to the hereditary principle.
As I understand it, the point that we are considering here is that if a Member of the House of Lords, being a Member within the category indicated in this Bill—that is to say, someone who succeeds to a peerage through no fault or advantage of his own but just succeeds—desires to renounce the peerage, he can do so and the question is whether the effect of this should or should not extinguish that peerage.
This identical point was raised in the Joint Committee, where it is reported on page 14. It might serve a useful purpose if I read out the Amendment which was put to the Joint Committee then, and if, at the same time, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the majority of the Members of the House of Commons on the Joint Committee voted in favour of the Amendment, but that it was defeated, in effect, by members of the Committee who were Members of another place.
This is what the majority of Members of the House of Commons on the Joint Committee wished the Committee to adopt:
They consider that a person who succeeds to a Peerage should be allowed to surrender it and that surrender should entail the extinction of the Peerage. There is no reason to maintain Peerages in a dormant State for the benefit or embarrassment"—
and here I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)—

of actual or prospective heirs. A person should be entitled to deal with the future status of his heirs by surrendering a hereditary Peerage just as under modern practice he can deal with their future status by accepting or refusing an offered Peerage of first creation.
I voted for that Amendment and I find nothing wrong with the argument in it. I have heard no answer to that, neither today nor on any previous occasion. This is a matter of pretty ancient history. In 1626, Mr. Justice Dodderidge said of the peerage:
…it is a personal dignity annexed to the posterity and fixed in the blood.
Yet we have hon. Members of the House of Commons today getting up more than three centuries afterwards and saying much the same thing.
5.0 p.m.
I regard statements of that sort as archaic nonsense. I should have thought that we had moved long out of that, not merely after three centuries, but after quite a short period. What were the civil wars in the seventeenth century about? To some extent, at any rate, they were to get rid of this kind of stuff. If nobody can find a better reason for opposing the Amendment than that, he ought not to oppose it at all.
There is at present no provision for a person by a voluntary act creating a state of affairs in which he himself is a commoner and yet, by virtue of his existence and his actions or omissions, his heirs have some sort of dormant right, putting the peerage in abeyance, as it were. Peerages now fall into abeyance for reasons which are rather archaic and which do not apply to all peerages and which are utterly different from anything which we have to consider here.
What the Government are seeking to do by the Bill, unless the Amendment is accepted, is to create a state of affairs which has no foundation whatever in any sort of historical views about peerages or anything else. What do we think we are doing? Are we really trying to put a peerage to bed and draw the sheets over it and hide it away until the man who has elected to renounce it dies, allowing it then suddenly to spring out of bed and come alive and kicking with another Duke of Whatdoyoucallum coming into existence? That is all arrant nonsense. I cannot see on what grounds a collection of reasonable and intelligent


Members, as we believe ourselves to be, can possibly manage to reject the Amendment and produce that utterly ridiculous state of affairs.
If this is a matter of Conservative principle, then I am even more mystified than I was before about what exactly Conservative principle is. There is no principle whatever in this. This is just rubbish. If a man renounces a peerage, the peerage must disappear, and it would be a ridiculous state of affairs if that did not happen.

Sir John Maitland: My reason for not being able to support the Government on this part of the Bill flows from a reason quite different from those I have heard while sitting in the Chamber. I have a deep and real admiration for the work of the House of Lords as it is at present. When I first came into the House, in 1945, I felt as though "M.P." had been tattooed on my forehead. That feeling wore off very quickly. I remember that I was once trying to find out more about some subject about which I knew very little—it was technological education, or something like that. I asked an old and experienced Member how I should set about studying the subject, and he told me that the House of Lords had debated it about a fortnight previously.
For the first time in my life, the House of Lords came into my consciousness as a deliberative body. I read its debate in Hansard and I may say that I have studied the debates of another place on all-important subjects ever since. I think that the debates of another place are far finer than we can have here, and that anybody who read the debate there yesterday would have great difficulty in denying that.
It is for those reasons that I do not want the House of Lords to be made a sort of dustbin of people who think that it is not good enough for them and that they must come to our House. I believe that if anybody feels a great urge to become a commoner, he should be able to do so. That is why I am not opposed to the Bill in general. Anybody should be able to disclaim his title if he desires to do so. But, if he does so in order to come to the House of Commons and not to use his abilities in the House of Lords, not to be able to raise the standard there, as we hope and perhaps believe that some of our hon. Friends who have left this

place might be able to do, it seems to me a gross insult to what we ought to expect from a second Chamber in the present circumstances—and the Bill deals with present circumstances and not with those of two years' hence.
It is because I do not think that there should be any encouragement for people of ability who have the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords not so to sit that I cannot support the Government in this case

Mr. Michael Foot: I want to say a few words on the precise Amendments before the Committee. I do not wish to appear to be a kind of dialectical blackleg by doing so, but I wish to say something on the precise case which has so far not been presented to us. I think that the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) is the first Member, certainly in this Committee stage and possibly in all debates that we have had on the matter, who has sought to present a case for what the Government are doing.
I did not think that the hon. Member's case was very good. It is a strange confession to say that one is dazzled by the debates in the House of Lords and that one wishes to maintain the institution absolutely immaculately as it is at present. It is a novel view, but it is a possible defence of the view which the Government are presenting in the Bill.
Apart from that, we have had no case for the proposal which the Government have inserted in the Bill. On the Second Reading debate, the Leader of the House said that he would say nothing about it then, but would reserve his speech until later. No doubt we will hear from the right hon. Gentleman what is the case for the extraordinary idea which the Government have incorporated in the Bill. We are all on tenterhooks to hear what it is, and I do not want to delay his being able to present it to us. However, so far, nobody, except the hon. Member for Horncastle, with his rather bizarre reason for supporting the Government, has attempted to defend it.
Only one other person has sought to do so—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, Viscount Hailsham. He thinks that the Government are going too far in a radical direction.


Viscount Hailsham thinks that there should be an in-and-out principle, that peers might be able not exactly to come in and out of this House and back into the House of Lords, but more frequently than is envisaged in the Bill.
In a memorandum which he sent to the Select Committee, the noble Lord said:
It would, of course, be clearly intolerable for a peer to move backwards and forwards at will.
That is a pretty big democratic concession.
This, of course, is not because of the advantage he would gain thereby—nobody ever really gains advantage from making himself ridiculous"—
another remarkable confession from the noble Lord—
but because part of the ridiculousness of his conduct would be passed on to Parliament.
The noble Lord concedes to us that they should not move backwards and forwards, but he said that the Government are going too far. At any rate, they have gone further than he proposed in his memorandum in allowing peers to come back to the House and revert to the House of Lords when they choose to do so. His proposition was that they should disclaim the peerage for only ten years or for the length of one Parliament. The Government have, therefore, gone somewhat further than Viscount Hailsham proposed, and in that sense, I suppose, they think that they are doing something rather daring.
In another part of his memorandum the noble Lord gave the reason why he was against the proposition for extinction of the peerage when a disclaimer was made. What he said was very interesting. This is the reason given by the greatest authority in the Conservative Party on why we are doing what the Government are asking us to do here and now:
On the other hand, I would see the greatest objections to the extinction of an hereditary title at the choice of its temporary holder. Many titles are links with a famous past and justly regarded as a part of the national heritage. It may in practice be reasonable that a holder should decide the matter for his own descendants, although I personally would not agree. But older titles may descend to brothers and cousins—or even more remotely—and to allow the ambition of perhaps even the spite or caprice of an individual to extinguish a famous name would,

I feel, not redound to the dignity of the institution and would inflict unmerited injustice on individuals, some of whom might well be incapable of defending themselves.
As many of them are not born, that seems a reasonable proposition.
This is Lord Hailsham's case for what we are doing, and he is the expert. This is a most remarkable utterance. It has nothing to do with how we can compose a legislature to decide the laws of this country, or how this country should be governed. It has nothing to do with how we should order our affairs. It has nothing to do with how we should decide the economy of the country, or how our wealth should be determined. Viscount Hailsham is not faintly interested in the question of how the nation should be governed, or what is the proper or democratic way of doing it. He is concerned merely with maintaining this part of our national heritage—the famous names. He thinks that it is terrible to extinguish them.
I understand people taking that view. Though it is an extraordinary view to take, people can take it, but those who take it should not pretend that they are concerned with good government in this country. It is mystical nonsense, though many people believe in it. They are entitled to defend mystical nonsense, but they should not then pretend that they are concerned with the proper Government of this country. This is the sole case which has been made—and apparently there are some hon. Gentlemen opposite who agree with Viscount Hailsham—and this is what they will vote for unless the Leader of the House at the last moment, in the nick of time, comes forward to explain why the House should pass a proposition of this nature.
If the Leader of the House defends the idea which the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords has defended, it will be a remarkable conjunction, because we were always told that the Leader of our House, as opposed to the Leader of the House of Lords, was one of the modernisers in the Conservative Party, and that if it had not been for some other unfortunate development they were going to say to the country that they were presenting a great modern up-to-date party. This is the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman is to defend.
That this House of Commons should have to meet to discuss such a piece of tomfoolery as this, whether it is proper to extinguish the titles or not, and that these great modern leaders of the Tory Party who are proposing to present a new image of an up-to-date party should defend Viscount Hailsham's proposition, is extraordinary. We know that before the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who has just come in, can carry out a modernisation programme they have a few other problems on their hands with which they have to deal. They have to push the "old man" overboard and get him out of the way, and that takes a little time.

The Chairman: Order. I think that we should devote our interests to the problems contained in the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: I must apologise, Sir William. Do not push him overboard; send him to the House of Lords. There is nothing in this Clause to prevent that.
It is a remarkable state of affairs that the party which is claiming that it wants to consider our government in a new style, that it wants to present a different aspect to the nation, that it wants to bring our institutions up to date, should have spent all this time producing this Bill, which includes this most inequitable proposition that someone who decides to disclaim a title should be able to retain it for his dependants. On the face of it, it looks as if the Leader of the House and his companions who have agreed to present this remarkable proposition have committed an absurdity, but I do not think that they are as foolish as they look.
I think that they have a serious purpose behind this. Everybody knows the origin of the Bill. Everybody knows the reason why the House of Commons has spent so many hours debating Wedgwood Benn's case, and eventually this Bill. We shall discuss it for some time, because we want to try to improve it. It has been brought in because of the one-man fight that Wedgwood Benn put up. Two or three years ago the Government were protesting against any idea of introducing a Bill of this nature. They were saying that the heavens might fall if they did; that the monarchy would be imperilled; and that many other dangers would inure if they injured the hereditary principle in the minute degree that they are proposing to do under the Bill generally.
The Government have been shamed into introducing this Measure as a whole, but they have decided, in doing so, to hang on to every conceivable privilege that they can, and the reason why the Leader of the House is prepared to make an ass of himself defending such a proposition as this is that, being an old-fashioned Tory, perhaps not quite so clever as he was once accused of being, he is still prepared to defend the House of Lords; because what other reason could he have for defending it than that, as the Tory Party is about to lose a General Election, this is the moment when it needs the House of Lords most of all?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: f wish to intervene only briefly to raise one point which has not been mentioned during the debate on this Amendment. I find this debate fascinating, because, with the exception of those Members of the Tory Party who are supporting the Amendment, the Tory Party has proved itself at its most metaphysical. We are discussing the in-built inherent qualities of the nobility which, through some strange biological process, are carried on generation after generation.
The party opposite is in favour of the hereditary principle, and always has been. This Bill is the reluctant first breaching of that principle in order, as with all Tory reforms, to give the impression at the eleventh hour, usually for the wrong reasons, that at any rate it has been breached.
What is possible under this Bill is that two, three, or four generations can successively disclaim the peerage until suddenly an heir is found who decides that he would like to revive it. He can go and dig it up, as it were, from the bottom of the garden, and there it will be complete with coronet and in perfect condition. It can then be de-mummified and brought back to life as if it had been put in deep freeze. One generation will take it out as if it were a frozen grouse and say, "I do not think that it is high enough" and put it back for another generation. Then perhaps the next generation will take it out and say, "I think that it is a little too high, but my successor might like it in that condition", and so back it will go to the deep freeze.
Finally, a generation is found which decides that it would like to bring the peerage back to life and because the inherent qualities of peerage are immortal and transcendent, they will have been preserved intact throughout the generations. However many disclaimers there may have been, so powerful and so valuable are these inherent qualities that it is right and proper that the possessors of them should be called to the legislature to rule our country, because, after all, on what better, more democratic, more unbiased principle can one select a legislature than by heredity?
The Leader of the House might say, "If only we could do this", but some Conservative seats are represented on that basis. I believe that one has been represented by one family through three generations. As to whether it would have been possible for the second generation to disclaim what the third generation would claim, I do not know, because the point never arose. But even the House of Lords has established the principle that after a peerage has been in abeyance for 300 years it cannot be revived. I am very fortunate that this is so, because I understand that otherwise it would be possible for me to revive a very disreputable Norman barony. That has been dead for 600 years, but all the qualities of nobility and all the inherent metaphysical qualities are still there. They are merely dormant. And one day, perhaps, if that bar is removed, they will be revived and that barony will entitle the holder automatically to sit in another place.
Therefore, I really suggest that if all that the noble Lord wanted was for the great names to be rolled out as in some Shakespearian play and to continue, let these noble Lords call themselves what they wish. Let them have all the territorial high-sounding names they wish to choose. No one will object. If that is their form of hope and contribution to our national life, they are welcome to it. But surely it is manifestly wrong that a man should be entitled to sit in the Legislature because, perhaps, after six generations and six successive disclaimers, he goes to the ice chest and brings out this sort of Piltdown Man, hacks the ice out of it, then takes out the coronet, puts it on his head and proceeds to another place.
How the Tory Party with the metaphysical arguments put forward can seriously suggest that it is a party of the twentieth century—at least the second half of the twentieth century—in tune with all the feelings of the ordinary people of the twentieth century, when this ridiculous mumbo-jumbo is going to be perpetuated, I cannot think. Therefore, I hope that that graduated Bow Grouper, the Leader of the House, and one of its proudest alumni, will be able to vote for this and that all the other Conservatives who are looking into the seventies—perhaps not worrying too much about the sixties—will realise that once a peerage has been disclaimed it must be disclaimed for all time and not be subject to this ridiculous jack-in-the-box arrangement, that in one generation it pops up, in the next it is pushed down, and then, finally, the button is pushed and it pops up again. How right the hon. Gentleman opposite is. We have had the downs and now we are just about ready for the ups.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): We have spent a long time on this Amendment, and very properly, because it is perhaps the most important matter that we are discussing in the Committee stage of this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) pointed out, there is a somewhat misleading air of all-party support for this Amendment, because whereas the Liberal Party regard it as paving to other Amendments which would come later and some hon. Members, like the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), would wish it to lead to a complete abolition of the hereditary principle in another place, my hon. Friend, I think, is paying towards an Amendment which I think we shall be discussing later and which would implement the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) on Second Reading, that on disclaimer the peerage should immediately devolve on the next heir. Clearly, those are very different objectives indeed.
The object of this Amendment, and also of some others that have been put down, is that a disclaimer should extinguish, drown, the peerage disclaimed instead of putting it into suspense during the lifetime of the person disclaiming. We have had some cogent—I would not


deny that—and some witty—I would not deny that either—observations made in support of that thesis. I listened with fascinated attention to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) putting his case about the Horse Guards Parade, though I should have thought that the more contemporary problem about the Horse Guards Parade was not who should have the right of way to walk across it but whether there should be a carpark under it. I was lost in the history which the hon. Gentleman put to the House.
The position was well stated by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who referred to the Joint Committee's Report and read the proposal which the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) put then before the Committee and which was lost on a Division by 12 votes to six. It is a perfectly fair point that five out of the six were Members of this House and that only four out of the 12 were Members of this House. So a majority of five to four of the Members of this House supported something similar to this proposal in another place. I am bound to say that if the merits of the case are so overwhelming and so entirely in accordance with Liberal doctrine, tradition and practice, then it is odd to find that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party voted for this proposal in another place and the Leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords voted against it. So perhaps the merits are not, so far as the Liberal Party is concerned, as conclusive as all that.

Mr. Lubbock: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, we do not regard this as a party matter.

Mr. Macleod: I must say that is one of the most inept interventions that I have ever heard.

Mr. Wade: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I think that it was quite a fair intervention, because at the outset of my speech I said that I was putting a personal point of view, and I think that my hon. Friend said that he hoped for a free vote.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the right hon Gentleman regard it as a private matter?

Mr. Macleod: No, not particularly, obviously. But what I do say is that

the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) cannot claim that this is an overwhelming matter of principle and that it is so dear to the heart of the Liberal Party if, in fact, the Liberal Party was divided on it and its Leader in another place took a contrary view.
Nobody could deny that there is cogency in the main argument, and it is the only one to which I really feel I need address myself, because it is enshrined in the words of the right hon. Member for Smethwick's challenged Amendment which was rejected by 12 votes to six. What it amounts to is the claim that because a man by accepting an hereditary peerage confers upon his posterity, who may be unborn, certain rights and also subjects them to certain disabilities, including, until the Bill is passed, the disability of not being a Member of the House of Commons, so it is equally right for a peer who disclaims his peerage in the future in accordance with the provision of this Bill to confer upon his posterity for ever the right to offer themselves for election to the House of Commons and to deprive them of the right to membership of the House of Lords.
I have said that this is a cogent argument and one that I think we should discuss and answer. But I am bound to say that we ought also to make this point. We are not here discussing, whatever the views of hon. Members may be, the question of the membership, in the full sense of the word, of another place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) when he said that any such discussion ought to start on the basis of a consideration of powers. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock made a similar point.
If the time comes when it is right to discuss the powers of another place, then the whole matter of composition is called into question. No one would deny that, but that is, with respect, not the question in front of us in this Bill. What is in front of us in the Bill is the clothing in legislative form of an agreement reached by a Joint Committee of both Houses—and in the most important decision of all reached very narrowly by11 votes to 10


with a certain amount of cross-voting. But I do not think that, even taking the package argument—and that is important in this respect—this argument is the decisive one. I believe that the argument which I have summarised is itself fallacious, that is to say, the argument in comparing the privileges taken on when a man accepts a peerage with the possibility put forward in these Amendments that he may disclaim them for his posterity.
5.30 p.m.
The whole point of this Bill—this is a matter to which we have to address ourselves and which was put to us by the Joint Committee—is to give each, successor in turn an opportunity of choosing for himself. We accept, and we do accept, that it is perfectly accurate to say that it was the case of Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn which has led to a change of opinion in this regard, and he is entitled to full credit for it. He will take his place in Parliamentary history. There can be no question of that, but if modern opinion is now that it is wrong for an ancestor who accepts a peerage to bind his posterity without their having any say in the matter, it is because of that that this Bill has come forward, because of that that we have had the Joint Committee's Report.
It would be anomalous in my view to amend the Bill, as is now proposed, to confer a similar power on a peer who disclaims. These Amendments—by far the most important—are not of course wrecking in the sense that those in whose names they are are ill-disposed towards the Bill. In fact, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) perfectly fairly said that even if these Amendments were defeated he would not vote against the Bill. But I believe they are wrecking in effect, because I cannot believe that anyone who has studied the Joint Committee's Report and seen the voting on that particular Amendment can think for a moment that these Amendments would therefore be acceptable.
We have to consider not just the logic of the case. I think there is a strong argument on both sides. I am quite prepared to concede that, but we have to consider the question whether, if these Amend-

ments were accepted, the Bill would not fall. I believe it would, but I would not finally rest my case on that because if I thought the logic of the case were overwhelming I should think it right to advise the House to accept these Amendments, whatever might happen in another place. We can argue how disagreement between the two Houses can be dealt with. I do not believe the main argument, on which alone the case for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West rests, is itself entirely sound.
That it has some validity I have freely admitted, but I believe, for the reasons I have given, that it is itself fallacious. Therefore I think the balance of logic tips, even though narrowly, against these Amendments. Because we are discussing the principle of a Bill recommended to us by the Joint Committee of both Houses and because I think absolutely essential to this proposition and to the whole Bill is agreement on this sort of subject, I do not suggest that we should accept these Amendments, and I recommend the House to reject them.

Mr. Mitchison: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to agree with most of us that the real object of this Bill is to decide on whether certain people can come into this House. Is it his opinion that on a matter of this sort we ought to be influenced by possible opposition in another place?

Mr. Macleod: No, I did not say that. What I did say was what I can put very clearly in the words of the right hon. Member the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said on 28th March, 1963:
Therefore, the almost final words of the Leader of the House in warning us about the pitfalls of trying to get substantial changes were wise, and I hope that those who are concerned about other matters will pay attention to them."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1560.]
I have always thought this the right way to approach a difficult problem, but I would not of course suggest that hon. Members—if they think the hon. Member's proposition is right—should be deterred from that by what might happen in another place. I would not suggest that for a moment. I believe the balance of logic still tips, although I have argued narrowly against these Amendments.

Question put, That "for his life" stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 134.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Aitken, Sir William
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Aliason, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John ( Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Barter, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pitman, Sir James


Batsford, Brian
Hay, John
Pott, Percivall


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bell, Ronald
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bingham, R, M.
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hollingworth, John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Ridsdale, Julian


Black, Sir Cyril
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Iremonger, T. L.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Brewis, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
James, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brooman-White, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter


Buck, Antony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Channon, H, P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stodart, J. A.


Chataway, Christopher
Kitson, Timothy
Storey, Sir Samuel


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cleaver, Leonard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooke, Robert
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Cooper, A. E.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, Sir William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F, V.
Longbottom, Charles
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Costain, A. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crawley, Aidan
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Curran, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Turner, Colin


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
Maclean,Sir Fitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


du Cann, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan.Rt.Hn. Harold Bromley)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Errington, Sir Eric
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker-Smith, Rt, Hon. Sir Derek


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wall, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Freeth, Denzil
Montgomery, Fergus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Woollam, John


Green, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Worsley, Marcus


Gresham Cooke, R.
Orr, Capt. L, P. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. Gordon Campbell


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
and Mr. McLaren.


NOES


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dempsey, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Diamond, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dodds, Norman


Barnett, Guy
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Donnelly, Desmond


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Callaghan, James
Duffy, A. E, P.


Bence, Cyril
Carmichael, Neil
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Walter, (Stepney)


Bowles, Frank
Collick, Percy
Evans, Albert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fell, Anthony


Bradley, Tom
Cronin, John
Fitch, Alan




Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Key, Rt, Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
King, Dr. Horace
Redhead, E. C.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Reynolds, G. W.


Ginsburg, David
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Gourlay, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, G. H. R, (Kensington, N.)


Grey, Charles
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McBride, N.
Skeffington, Arthur


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McCann, John
Small, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldhwn, W.)
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacDermot, Niall
Spriggs, Leslie


Hannan, William
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Harper, Joseph
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hart, Mn. Judith
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swingler, Stephen


Hayman, F. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson,G. M. (Dundee, C.)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Manuel, Archie
Tomney, Frank


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Marsh, Riehard
Weitzman, David


Hilton, A. V.
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hooson, H. E.
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Houghton, Douglas
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Lt. (Abertillery)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moody, A.S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hunter, A. E.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Janner, Sir Barnett
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Wade and Mr. Lubbock.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end to add:
(6) Any person upon whom a peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom (not being a life peerage) has been conferred by letters patent or otherwise and who has afterwards succeeded to a peerage in the peerage of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom may by the same instrument of disclaimer disclaim both peerages.
The purpose of this Amendment will be apparent to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. What I am asking the Committee to do is to open the gaol gates just a little wider. We are proposing to let out of the other place Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Quintin Hogg, and Alexander Victor Edward Paulet Montague, alias Lord Hinchingbrooke. There has been nothing like it since the early days of the French Revolution, when all titles were renounced and Mirabeau became plain M. Riquetti.
I should like to add to this splended procession just one more figure, that of Frank Pakenham, known as the Earl of Longford. It seems to me unjust that he should be left alone in his gilded cage all the rest of his life. I think that the circumstances of his case are tolerably well known to all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. It will be remembered that he was the heir to them

peerage of Longford. It was at the time that he was the heir to the peerage that he himself was requested to go to the other place in order to represent in various capacities the Labour Government of those days. He was thus performing a very necessary and valuable public sevice. He became Lord Pakenham at that time in the belief that eventually he must, whether he wished it or not, become the Earl of Longford. If he had known that there was to be legislation of this character in his lifetime it might very well be that he would have come to a different decision. We are in this Bill dealing particularly with certain individuals which we all have in mind. But we are not passing this Measure, as I understand it, simply for the benefit or the relief of the individuals concerned. It has other purposes as well.
The Bill, although it is a modest Measure, will strengthen Parliamentary institutions by bringing into this House persons who wish to serve here and who are well qualified to do so. Secondly, the Bill serves to enlarge the rights of the electors in the various constituencies by extending their area of choice. Both these considerations apply to the case about which I am addressing the Committee.
When this matter was raised on Second Reading and I put a question to the right


hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, he indicated that the Government were not particularly sympathetic to the point of view which I am now urging, and he relied upon the views of the Select Committee. It is perfectly true that in page 7 the Joint Select Committee said:
They agreed that Peers of first creation (including Life Peers and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary) should not be so enabled. They discussed the question whether Peers who had succeeded to Peerages and had applied for and received Writs of Summons to the House of Lords should be enabled to surrender.
It is very easy to understand the reasoning which underlies that conclusion. Anybody might feel that if somebody had become a peer entirely of his own volition and allowed his name to be put forward to the Sovereign and had been called up to the House of Lords by his or her choice that that should be final and it ought not to be possible afterwards to have a second choice and come back to this House. That was the principle which was laid down by the Joint Select Committee, but here we are dealing with circumstances which are entirely different, because Frank Pakenham, as he was when he accepted his title in 1945, did not have a free election between being a peer and being a commoner. As far as he could have known at that time, he had no ultimate choice. Ultimately he had to land up in the other place. It was in those circumstances that he became Lord Pakenham.
I understand—indeed this was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) on Second Reading—that this case was not considered by the Select Committee. I therefore suggest that the passage which I have just read and upon which the Leader of the House relied on Second Reading has no application here. It seems to me that if the Committee accept the Amendment we shall be strengthening the Bill, we shall be carrying out the policy which underlines the whole Measure and we shall be removing one more case of injustice.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) has very fairly said that he has moved the Amendment to deal with the particular case of Lord Longford, although he endeavoured to place it upon grounds of general principle. The position of Lord Longford

is that he holds four peerages—first, the Irish Earldom of Longford; secondly, the Irish Barony of Longford; thirdly, the United Kingdom Barony of Silchester; and finally, the United Kingdom Barony of Pakenham. He inherited the Earldom and Barony of Longford and the Barony of Silchester in 1961 from his brother. He had, however, been created Baron Pakenham in 1945, and he is therefore an hereditary peer both of first creation and by succession.
He asked that special consideration should be given to his case because he was created Baron Pakenham in circumstances in which it was virtually certain that, if he survived his elder brother, he would one day become a member of the House of Lords. Of course, his Irish titles are wholly irrelevant, and it is only the disclaimer of the Barony of Silchester which would be effective. Were he to disclaim that, he would still be left with the Barony of Pakenham, which he accepted as a Barony of first creation and which he would not be capable of disclaiming under the Bill. As a matter of fact, if the Amendment were passed there are two other peers who would be affected by it—Lord Trevethin and Oaksey and the Earl of Dundee.
I propose, however, to deal with the Amendment not on the basis of personalities but on principle. The objection to the Amendment is that in my submission it would be anomalous to make any special provision for an individual peer or a particular class of hereditary peers of first creation solely because he, or any one of them, could have had special motives for accepting the peerage of first creation. If this were done, other peers of first creation who were not members of this particular class might justifiably argue that they had had special motives for accepting their peerages and that in the light of the change of circumstances which has come about in after years, they also ought to be allowed to disclaim because special circumstances applied to them.
To do this would be contrary to the fundamental principle of the Bill—namely, that a person who has deliberately chosen to serve in the House of Lords should not be entitled to resile from that position. Putting perhaps the same argument in a different way, one might argue, why should a person upon


whom an hereditary peerage has been conferred as the first creation, without at that time being in expectation of succeeding to an hereditary peerage, but who by a series of unexpected events in fact succeeds, have a second choice or chance of coming back to the House of Commons from which he had voluntarily excluded himself, whereas a peer who is an hereditary peer of the first creation and who had expected to succeed but did not, or an hereditary peer of the first creation who had no possibility whatever of succeeding because there was no peerage to which he could succeed, would not have the second choice. The person who succeeds unexpectedly would have a second choice.
I suggest that the matter was perhaps best summed up by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) who has studied this matter so thoroughly, when he said on Second Reading,
it seems to me reasonable that any man who says, 'I will go into the House of Lords', has opted for his lifetime…"—[Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 518.]
I submit that that is the right principle to apply and, however much for personal reasons it may be desirable that one or all of the three peers should be given this advantage, it would be difficult to make the exception on sound general principle.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(EFFECTS OF DISCLAIMER.)

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), as follows: in page 3, to leave out lines 41 and 42 and to insert:
and the succession shall take effect as though he had died on the completion of his disclaimer".
I call Mr. Bennett. Apparently the hon. Member is not here.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(SCOTTISH PEERAGES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Maclay: Before we part from the Clause I hope that the Leader of the House will give just a little guidance on the reason for its inclusion in the Bill. I think that he will be with us in a moment, and I should like him to hear this argument.
The origin of the Clause is paragraphs 7 to 14 of the Report of the Joint Committee. Paragraph 8 of that Report gives a cogent reason for changing the practice which at present exists whereby there are elections to produce representative Scottish peers. But I think that we should have a little further explanation as to why it has been decided to go ahead with this proposal.
I do not want to make a long speech about it, but we are contemplating changing a procedure which has gone on for more than a quarter of a millenium. It has produced some very useful results in the other place, and it is a system which of itself is of some interest. I should like to be assured that very full consideration was given to the matter before deciding to change a procedure which has functioned fairly satisfactorily for a good many years.
Moreover, this proposal has not passed entirely without comment outside the House, and I believe that varying views are held on it by some of those most directly affected. It might be helpful if the Leader of the House would give some guidance, and perhaps I might briefly repeat part of my argument now that my right hon. Friend is here. The point which I want to get clear is whether the full historic significance of the existing procedure was fully appreciated when the decision was taken to make an alteration in it; whether the views of those who are most intimately concerned in this alteration have been fully sounded; and whether, in the circumstances that it is something which has worked fairly well for a very long time, it should necessarily disappear now.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I should like to reassure the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), and I do so as a member of the Select Committee. We spent a great dal of time on this matter. The primary intention of the Select Committee was to iron out the issues which arise in


the early Clauses, for example, the question of disclaimers.
If the right hon. Gentleman will read all the debates in the Official Report leading up to this matter he will find that the then Leader of the Opposition strictly addressed himself to this and stressed particularly the injustice to those Scottish peers who were not selected. He thought that it was a complete anachronism—I agree—that a man who was not so selected was yet disfranchised as if he were selected. If only one of those men so disfranchised felt himself disadvantaged, that, with me, would carry greater weight than the fact that someone felt, because of a legendary or historical association of the family, sorry that an old practice had passed.
I do not want to go into the Act of Union and all that sort of thing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that I am interested in this matter. In the Select Committee we studied this subject at great length. The Select Committee, in effect, sprang from the protest of one man—Wedgwood Benn. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would concede that. We took the view that, even though there was a protest from one man in the Scottish peerage who was equally disadvantaged, it would be better to clear it up now. After all, the hardship of 1963 is of greater concern to the House of Commons than the romantic situation of bygone days.
I look on these sort of secondary considerations in exactly the same way as I consider the question of the peeresses. In that case, there is often an overriding consideration of equity, justice and principle to be borne in mind. In the one case I have never believed that there should be any disadvantage between the sexes. I do not think that any disadvantage should be suffered by some potential Wedgwood Benn.
I should like to say, at this stage, that to sit on the Select Committee was a very fascinating experience for anyone with the taste for this sort of thing. The only thing—I may as well make this point whilst I am on my feet—which we excluded from—I will not say "the package deal" but from our consideration—was the matter dealt with earlier, namely, drowning. The Labour Party reserved its position on that issue all the way through.
We are concerned wtih a number of Scottish peers. If they were considered alone, I am not in favour of increasing the number of peers. However, the number involved is just about the number which any Prime Minister might make up in one year. It does not greatly affect the main number. We are considering injustices to individuals and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long association with Scotland, to bear in mind that we on this side are also very conscious of history.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is a matter of equity. Very few Scottish peers are affected by this, because there is little difference between the number of representative peers and the number of peers eligible to sit, that is, excluding those who are minors. I welcome this particularly because, whatever else it does, it irons out an anomaly which arose over the Act of Union. I am very glad that the other place will be reinforced by increased representation from Scotland. I do not think that we should be influenced by a very important constitutional point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) on the Act of Union. Many of the points which arose on that Measure have now subsided, in view of the total number of Scottish peers eligible. I personally welcome the fact that Scotland will in future have all its peers sitting in another place.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In the Select Committee we considered this point and the representations made to us very carefully. Nobody lightly suggests an Amendment to the Act of Union. Nobody on this side of the Committee lightly considers an addition to the number of hereditary peers. The simple point was that, if we were to extend to Scottish peers the right to disclaim, it would be very complicated to apply the system if the elective system operated, because, at any rate in theory one never knows which peers would be elected. It was impossible to work out a system by which the right to disclaim could be extended to Scottish peers. It was considered that this was the only way of doing it. We therefore wanted to give the same rights to Scottish peers as to others. That is why this proposal figures in the Report and in the Bill.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has raised this point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". This is an important point. I am also grateful to the two members of the Select Committee—the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)—who have provided at least two-thirds of the reply that I would make on this point. I do not think that there was any division whatever on this matter in the Select Committee, but this does not mean that it was not most carefully discussed and examined. Indeed it was. The right hon. Member for Smethwick was right in saying that it is, and is recognised to be, an important and serious matter to amend the Act of Union with Scotland and other Acts by this Clause.
One should recognise that there are some Scottish representative peers who hold the view, to which my right hon. Friend gave expression, that this is a duty which has been placed upon them of which they are very proud and that there are advantages in it. The logic of the case is clearly against them. If one adopted that argument, the argument would apply with almost equal strength to England, and a similar method of selection and representation by selection would appertain.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has made the point and that we have had this response from two members of the Joint Select Committee. If Members of another place wish to pursue any matter by Amendment when the Bill goes to another place, that is for them. I believe that the logic of the case is with the Joint Committee and with the Bill.

Mr. Maclay: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply? I hasten to assure the two members of the Select Committee who have spoken that I in no way intended to cast any reflection on the amount of care and attention they would give to anything that happens north of the Border as well as anywhere else. I was anxious that this point should be ventilated, because it is a very big change to have in a matter which may not appear to be of profound importance, but one does not like to see something which has lasted for 250 years

go without a full appreciation of what is happening.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND REPEALS.)

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, to leave out subsection (2).
The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to bring the Bill into operation on the Royal Assent rather than, as it now stands, on the dissolution of Parliament. The more I have thought about the exchanges we had on this matter on Second Reading the more unsatisfactory have I found the arguments and propositions of the Government. I even infer that there may be some lack of satisfaction on the other side of the Committee, because I see that the Daily Telegraphhas been called in aid and has produced a leading article today which is intended to rally the other side. The article seems to me to produce very feeble arguments and to miss most of the points.
The Attorney-General produced two arguments on Second Reading against our proposition. He said this:
…my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has consistently made this announcement"—
that is, the announcement of the intention to bring the Bill into operation by the next election—
and there has not been one peep or murmur from hon. Members opposite who now appear to be shocked by the idea."—[Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 555.]
Even granted that this is true and that we were slow off the mark, it does not go to the merits of the argument. It has no real relevance to our argument. The reason why there was no peep out of the Opposition was that we took at its face value the undertaking that the Leader of the House gave us. He gave it on 29th March last, when he said that if such legislation were desirable the Government would bring it forward in this Parliament so that it might be in operation for the coming General Election.
We understood "operation" to mean that it would come in time to work by the next General Election. When we consider something coming into operation we think, as we thought he intended, that he wanted the Measure quickly—indeed, he said he did—so that it could come into operation and really work by the time of the next election. To say that it will be in force a few days before the election is not observing, if not the letter, the spirit of the undertaking or the sense in which it is normally understood that such a Measure would be in operation by the election.
The Attorney-General had a somewhat more substantial argument, for he said:
It was thought right that, as we had all been elected an one basis of the constitution for this Parliament, we ought to continue through this Parliament on that basis and that the composition of the House of Lords in particular should not be altered in this Parliament and that it would be perfectly satisfactory if the Bill came into operation for the purposes of the next Parliament."—(Official Report, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 555.]
The Leader of the House said that it would come into operation at the General Election. The Attorney-General now says that it will come
…into operation for the purposes of the next Parliament.
This argument was the only one of substance I observed to be used by the Attorney-General, but how does he square that with the bringing of the Measure into operation at once in the case of the Life Peerages Act? That affected the composition of the House of Lords and it is interesting to note that the Attorney-General said:
…the composition of the House of Lords in particular should not be altered in this Parliament…
The Life Peerages Bill, which gravely altered the composition of the House of Lords, came into operation upon the Royal Assent. I appreciate that the Attorney-General is a distinguished lawyer, but I would be interested to hear how a distinction can be drawn between these two operations, both of which affect the composition of the House of Lords. In one case the Government wanted the Bill in operation at once, and that is what happened, while in the other they do not want it in operation at once and they use a completely different argument to suit their purpose. Had this argument

been used at the time of the Life Peerages Bill it would not have come into operation upon the Royal Assent. However, that argument was not then thought of; and the Attorney-General would not have thought of the new argument unless he had other reasons for opposing the Opposition's Amendment.
Let us consider the consequences of the refusal of the Government, if they refuse, to accept the Amendment. Let us say that an hon. Member now in the House of Commons succeeds to the peerage between the enactment of the Bill and its coming into operation upon the dissolution of Parliament. There would have to be a by-election, the seat having been vacated, and the by-election would have to be fought and contested even though the law had been changed by Parliament, by both Houses, and had the Royal Assent. Although the law had been changed we would have to go on pretending that it had not been changed. In such circumstances one or more by-elections might have to be fought and if that happened the law would appear to be an ass. Everyone would laugh at us. This is one consequence that might be involved if the Government refuse to bring this Measure into operation upon the Royal Assent.
6.15 p.m.
The Attorney-General said that it would be easy for peers who wished to disclaim to go, either now or directly after the Bill was passed, to any constituency party or association and say, "Please adopt me. I am prepared to disclaim when the day comes." Does the Attorney-General not realise that this sort of thing causes difficulties for people placed in this position? In practice, when people are seeking adoption by a local party they have rivals. More than one person is trying to get this honour and if one of the rivals says or gets a friend to say, "This other fellow is a peer. He may change his mind about disclaiming and what a mess you will then be in," great difficulties could be caused for the peer concerned. It is obvious that this must make things more difficult for a peer than if the Bill came into operation upon the Royal Assent.
If the argument of the Attorney-General is that it does not make any


real difference because a peer can get adopted, why is he being so obstinate? Why does he want to stop the Bill coming into operation? Why not allow a peer to dsclaim, be adopted, be ready to nurse his constituency and take part in the election fight? Why is he being so obstinate and putting unnecessary complications in the way?
Since the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, compared with those he gave concerning the Life Peerages Act, do not, we believe, represent any real objections, one must look for the real reasons behind the present view of the Government.
The Government would not be putting this argument forward if it were the only one. Had they said that the Measure should come into operation upon the Royal Assent, and an hon. Member had moved a Motion saying "No" and moved that it should be at the next election, the Government would have blown that argument away at once. I believe that they have a bad conscience and do not want to explain the proper reason. I do not wish to refer to ulterior motives, because that might be improper. However, the Government have laid themselves open to the suspicion that they have ulterior motives—and one of these could be that they wish to avoid an awkward by-election.
The hon. Member who now represents Bristol, South-East (Mr. St. Clair), who has been put in a difficult and invidious position, has honourably said that he will resign directly the Bill comes into operation. If it came into operation upon the Royal Assent he would, thereby, immediately vacate his seat, and there would be a by-election in Bristol, South-East, with the consequences that we all know. I agree that this would be awkward for the Government from the political point of view and, of course, they want to avoid that. But if this is the argument, and they wish to be fair, they should tell hon. Members the position frankly so that we can know exactly where we stand.
By putting the operation of the Bill off and bringing it in when Parliament is dissolved the Government will avoid this awkward by-election. However, if they carried out at least the spirit of the

promise given by the Leader of the House—and not its bare letter—they would not need to worry. They would merely have to face the awkwardness of difficult by-elections, just as Governments must face other awkward situations.
Another ulterior motive of which the Government are bound to be suspected is that they want to keep Lord Hailsham out as long as they possibly can. It is generally known that there is a powerful jockeying for position going on. There are people who look ahead and realise that sometimes, when a horse gets a bit ahead, if one can prolong the race another horse might get ahead. We know who is in charge of the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman cannot altogether expect to escape from the suspicion that he is one of the jockeys in this matter. But I do not want to interfere in the problems and difficulties of the party opposite.

Mr. C. Pannell: Does my right hon. Friend think that the final decision would rest with the Leader of the House? Are there not more powerful horses than he in politics?

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not doubt what are the interests of the right hon. Gentleman. There are bigger men or allies in this who would concert with him. We all know how these things operate at moments like this. However, I do not want to interfere in the internal affairs of the party opposite and, for my part, I could not care less who they have as their next Leader; but conclusions are bound to be drawn.
Coming back to the Government's so-called reasons concerning the Bill, the impression is being given, because of their obstinacy, that this is a rather slick, too-clever-by-half kind of trick. There cannot be any real grounds for saying that this Measure cannot come into operation on the Royal Assent. There can only be this sham constitutional ground that did not apply in other cases in which the Government did not want it to apply. This is a trick objection; a promise is kept in words, but not in spirit. Not a single real reason has been given for the Government's obstinacy in this case. It is a mean-spirited action inspired solely by the fact that the Government's motives cannot be openly declared and announced.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The motives imputed by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) are incorrect. We are in a difficulty here, because if I have interpreted the Joint Committee's terms of reference correctly, no date or timetable was given. In that respect, we have no guidance. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman said that there have been precedents. The precedent he cited was the Life Peerage Bill, but that was part of the Conservative manifesto which said that some alteration in the composition of the House of Lords would be made in the next Parliament—

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree, but I can give two other examples. Both the Parliament Acts were brought into operation in the Parliaments in which they were passed, and those Measures made very great changes in the Constitution.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think that in both those instances the Measure was part of the election platform. In fact, one of them was the platform on which the election was fought—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Not the first one.

Dr. Glyn: No, the second one—so there was some notional justification for bringing it in at that time—

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Life Peerage Bill was surely not announced as part of the Conservative programme?

Dr. Glyn: Although the actual Measure was not specifically cited, it was stated during the election that some reform of the House of Lords was under consideration.
Be that as it may, there are, and will be, some real practical difficulties between now and the next General Election, but we are, perhaps, making very heavy weather of this point. I shall be interested in hearing the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for delaying the operation of this Measure. I do not believe that we are faced with any difficulties in bringing it into operation immediately, and I should not have thought that there were any objections to doing that. On the other hard, whether we like to admit it

or not, there is the point that this Bill represents an agreement in principle between the two sides, but, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no such agreement on timing, nor was timing included in the Joint Committee's terms of reference which I regard as the bible for this Bill. Personally, I see no specific reason why the Bill should not be brought into operation as soon as it is enacted.

Mr. C. Pannell: I do not think that the Joint Committee, as such, was very much bothered about the time of the operation of the Bill. We were concerned, on limited terms of reference, about its content. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has quoted precedents for saying that there is nothing at all in the argument that we somehow breach some constitutional principle if we make the operative date that on which this Measure receives the Royal Assent. The date of the next election is unpredictable. There might not be a great deal of hardship on anyone if the General Election took place this fall, but if the Government were to go to their full term of office—which is rather longer than most hon. Members seem to think, because the term runs for five years from the date of the first sitting of a Parliament—there would be a considerable measure of hardship.
What intrigues me is what took place last Thursday. It seemed to me that speaking in the early part of our debate, the Leader of the House was not unsympathetic to this proposal. I do not impute anything to him in regard to his own personal position in the party, and I am not being in any way personally offensive to him when I say that it will be a high-level decision, but, at the beginning of that debate, his whole demean our was that there might be something in the proposal. It is only at the end of the day that the Attorney-General appeared to give it such hard treatment, and I wondered whether anything had been done or said in the course of the debate that had made the right hon. and learned Gentleman take that line.
There is not very much in the point at all, is there? It is not only that Mr. Wedgwood Benn will undoubtedly be returned for Bristol, South-East—I do not know that any Conservative opponent will dare to go to the hustings against


him after this, because we have always held him to be the duly returned Member for that Division and believe that he still is—but there is also the position of the Conservative hon. Member who now represents that constituency and who has more or less indicated that he will get out as soon as this Bill becomes law.
I am not sure that the Leader of the House is not being rather tough on someone who, at least, did a rather unpopular stint for his party. I understand that the present Member for Bristol, South-East also has political ambitions—he, too, wants a seat—but, at present, he is suspended in a sort of never-never-land, and is rather in the position of being neither one thing nor the other.
The point has already been made today that any noble Lord who does not want to take his place in the other Chamber can fit himself for the next election, but this question of Bristol, South-East affects not only Mr. Wedgwood Benn but the man now deemed to be the Member for that division. If we cut out all the constitutional arguments, what, in equity, is left except the expense, the nuisance and, perhaps, the odium of a by-election?

Mr. Iain Macleod: To deal, first, with the last point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), there was no difference whatever on Second Reading between what I said and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said. The hon. Member interrupted me on this point, and said that
…another 'Hailsham amendment' would be looked on as political strategy.
I replied:
With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got the point entirely wrong. I was concerned only with the question of the one month, and only with present Members of the House of Commons. I make it clear that I do not suggest an alteration, but I think it only fair to those eight or 10 hon. Members…to draw attention to the conceivable effect of this provision upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 469.]
I therefore made it clear right away, and in response to the hon. Gentleman's interruption, that I thought the Bill right as it stands, and I should like now to give the two main reasons for my thinking so.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made a speech

extremely offensive to me personally, and I do not propose to reply in terms to him. He said, first of all—and I should like to dispose of this point before coming to the main argument—that I was implementing the letter and not the spirit of my promise. That is not so. It has always been frankly understood, as can be seen if one studies what has been said, that the Bill would operate in this way on the Dissolution of the present Parliament.
That is easy enough to illustrate. In our debate on 28th March, 1963, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:
…I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept from us that we believe that we ought to have a Bill quickly. It certainly ought to be brought in so that the reform will apply in time for the next General Election."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1557.]
6.30 p.m.
After that debate I announced out proposals in the House on 15th May, 1963, when I said:
…I can therefore state that it is our intention to introduce legislation to give effect to them"—
That is to the recommendations—
in time to take effect at the next General Election."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1963; Vol. 677, c. 1324.]
The Times, on 31st May, published a very full story headed:
Reluctant Peers Can Begin Constituencies Search",
followed by another main heading:
Lords Reform Bill To Come Into Force On Dissolution
which said:
The last Clause firmly states: 'This Act shall come into force on the dissolution of the present Parliament.' Thus Mr. Macleod's undertaking to the Commons a few weeks ago is fulfilled, though he was careful to add the words—'providing both Houses agree'.
There has been no word of dissent from that until the right hon. Member for Smethwick raised the point.

Mr. Lubbock: If the right hon. Gentleman had gone on to read the next sentence people might have realised that when he made his statement on the 15th there was some doubt whether legislation could be passed through in this Session. Many people took his remarks to mean that there might be some delay, due to pressure of business


in the House, but that in any event the Bill would be reintroduced in the autumn.

Mr. Macleod: Certainly, if there were any doubt about that on the 15th May I am sure that the hon. Member will admit that there could have been none on 30th May when the Bill was printed, and that there was none is clearly shown from the article in The Times.
So much for the point of the subsection. It implements both the letter and the spirit of my undertaking, but I agree that it is more important to argue the merits of this case. This, briefly, I propose to do. It is perfectly true that the Life Peerage Bill affects the composition of the other place, a composition which does not depend upon election, and the Bill gave the right to create life peerages, and it is true that that Bill came between General Elections.
If the Committee studies the precedents which affect the composition of this place—it will find them over a considerable period of time. It will find—and this is what matters—that they are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposition which I put forward. I do not mind whether the right hon. Member for Smethwick believes me or not, in view of the sort of speech he made, but I say to him that no political considerations came into the drafting of this Bill at all. It was drawn up some time ago and was drawn up with this particular point in mind. The right time to do these things is at a General Election.
There is one conceivable argument which can be put forward, and perhaps I should give the two dates, because they are important. The Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act, 1918, which made women eligible for membership of the House of Commons and was therefore an alteration in the eligibility for this place—which is just what we are considering—came into effect on the Royal Assent, but the Royal Assent was on 21st November, 1918, and the Dissolution was on 25th November and clearly the two were known and were taken together.
The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1918, which gave the vote to women, had provisions preventing it affecting the current parliamentary register and parliamentary elections, or the constitution of the House of Commons, before the next Dissolution.

In the same way the Act of 1948, which made a number of changes, including the abolition of the university vote, did not come into force during the Parliament then in Session. It came in at the General Election.
There are certain complications which would arise and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was quite right in mentioning these in relation to the Writ of Summons and the Scottish peers, but they could be overcome and it would be possible—which is by no means unknown—to have different dates for different parts of the Bill to come into operation. This is quite common form.
The other point is the position of the eight or ten Members to which reference has been made. I drew attention to this myself because I thought it right to draw attention to something which might escape, and certainly up to the moment had escaped, notice. But what we are doing for our present colleagues in the House of Commons, wherever they may sit, is to suggest that they continue in their present state and continue on the basis on which they were elected to the House. Therefore, I would claim quite clearly two things. First, beyond argument—and I think that I have shown it from documentary evidence—what has been put in the Bill implements both the letter and the spirit of the undertaking.

Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking about his colleagues already in the House of Commons who might be advantaged by the Bill, for instance, any one of the half dozen put in the position of Mr. Wedgwood Benn. Does not this create a vacuum between us by the next election? Could it create one?

Mr. Macleod: Of course it could, in certain circumstances which conceivably could happen. It was to draw the attention of the House to this that I referred to the matter on Second Reading. But I cannot think that that point is enough to influence the Committee to go against the long-established practice that it is normal to make such changes at the time of the General Election. I quite agree, and I want to make it absolutely clear, that there was no agreement on this point in the Joint


Committee. I was entitled to argue on the "drowning" issue—and this was one of my strongest points—that if those Amendments had been carried we all knew that there would have been no Bill.
There was no agreement upon this point and therefore there would be no breach of agreement in my view, although I do not know what view another place would take if we changed it. The precedents are clearly in favour of what we have done, and therefore I recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: I have been trying with one ear to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech and with one eye to skim through the Bill again, because I humbly confess that the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) so ably raised in his opening speech had not fully occurred to me, but it raises doubts. I am sure that the Leader of the House will appreciate that we found ourselves on the Committee discussing a whole series of problems which became consequent one upon the other. There were all kinds of possibilities which came up, some very fascinating and some largely dialectical.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in drafting the Bill, or whoever did draft the Bill, put into it something which is decidedly unusual. The special precedent to which my right hon. Friend referred certainly was a special precedent. I am speaking off the cuff, but I think that it was a case where under the Parliament Act it was implicit that the electorate should decide upon the Measure and that the party claiming reform should take the views of the House of Commons and pass that Act and then the electorate should decide, knowing that the election would be fought on that issue, and that if the Conservative Party won the election it would repeal the Act. This, under the Parliament Act, provided a special exception to the general proposition.
I have tried and failed to understand the constitutional law but I have always thought that Acts of Parliament restrictive of the power of future Parliaments were nugatory. I do not want to use the phrase misleadingly and I can stop the Attorney-General from whispering

by accepting the fact that the meaning of the words was that one could not prevent Parliament putting in a restrictive Clause to prevent a future Parliament from doing something. Indeed, although we can repeal the Parliament Act when we want to, our action would have no effect if we did. We could go through the legislative process of breaking our promises and pledges for the future, but we could not enforce it, and we should merely be making a gesture, in the circumstances a singularly unfortunate one, of course.
Nevertheless, in this limited sense, it is unusual and, I suggest, undesirable to say to the House, "We want to pass a Bill about which there is no great Parliamentary dispute, which will probably go through in a few hours, which will take no great Parliamentary time; but we say that it must not have any effect, virtually, until another Parliament is in course of being engendered".
The problems which come to my mind—no doubt the Leader of the House has considered them—are these. First, there is the notification to Mr. Speaker. This gave rise in the Joint Select Committee to quite a problem. It was well understood that the importance of keeping Mr. Speaker informed was in everyone's mind, but, of course, when the Bill takes effect, there will be no Mr. Speaker. How does one notify a non-existent person of an event which must occur and take effect immediately in order to facilitate one's standing for Parliament? I see the Attorney-General whispering again to the Leader of the House. In fact, the reference to Mr. Speaker applies only to people who are sitting in Parliament and who succeed to a peerage while they have their seats.
This is another curious feature. There will be a great conflict, if there is a death at the moment just before an election, as to whether the person who had the seat in Parliament and thought that he would continue to have it but has succeeded to a peerage in the circumstances can disqualify himself from the peerage and go on or not. I confess to some doubt about it. I put the point quite humbly and seriously as one which goes not so much to the merits as to considerations of drafting. But we did think that these were important drafting points.
The whole question of what happens when a peer dies in the course of an


election was the subject of prolonged discussion, not because there was much disagreement about what we wanted but because of doubt about how best to proceed. There was the possibility of making the returning officer into a much more important individual than he ought to be. There is no Speaker at that time. There is the candidate for the Cities of London and Westminster, or, wherever it may be—a highly political individual for the moment. If we do not operate the Bill until the Dissolution, then at that moment Mr. Speaker ceases to exist.
The Lord Chancellor may be abroad. It may be said that, if one has 12 months to consider the matter, all this is nonsense. One drops a letter to the Lord Chancellor's office and he will in due time receive it. But it does matter how a person serves a letter on the Lord Chancellor immediately after the Dissolution, when he wants to stand for election and he has only about ten days to do everything and get himself nominated. We have compelled him by the Clause to go through the indecent process of negotiating for his seat while he is a peer and, for ten, twelve, or eighteen months carrying on the pretence of being a peer in another place when everybody knows that he is going to chuck off his ermine robes, his coronet, even his strawberry leaves, if necessary, and dash into the political arena the moment Her Majesty exercises her constitutional right to dissolve this House and, technically speaking, the other House also for that purpose.
It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has raised a point of some importance. I wish that I had more time to look at it. I ought to have used my time better. I have wasted my time, and I plead guilty, reserving my defence on that issue. There are points which require consideration in these circumstances. They call for a little more attention than, apparently, they have had so far.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House disliked the observations made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I assure him that, speaking for myself, I did not think that they went beyond the proper limits of this place. That is a matter which we must each judge for ourselves. But, putting that aside, I hope very much that

the Government will look at this question again.
Let us accept for the purpose of what I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman carried out what he said. Let us further accept that there is precedent, a preponderance of precedent one way, if he likes, in favour of the Bill. The really important question here is what is the right and fair thing to do in relation to the people who will be affected by the Bill, that is, both the possible candidates—all of us have some idea of who they will be, and obviously, though there may be others, Mr. Wedgwood Benn is one—and also the electors of the constituencies where these people are likely to be adopted.
It really is unsatisfactory to invite a constituency party to adopt somebody on the footing that, having regard to legislation which will come into force at the time of the election, he is at present minded, or he promises, to resign at the time. It is true that, in the majority of cases, all will be well and he will resign. But this is not the only point. One will be dealing with people who will at the moment be peers. There is the question of names. I do not think that names matter, but this sort of thing can easily cause real confusion in the minds of a lot of people who do not go in for the niceties of parliamentary procedure.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman—no doubt, he has had similar experience himself—that all kinds of strange things happen to me, especially on the fringes of my constituency where I cannot go so often. It is very easy for people to get muddled about the identity even of their sitting Member, let alone of a candidate. We all want to be fair to the constituents and the Members concerned.
If I thought that there was any serious practical reason for postponing the operation of the Bill until the General Election, I should not be making this speech, but I really cannot see the grounds for it. Let us admit that it is the letter of the pledge, if the right hon. Gentleman would like it put in that way. Let us admit that the balance of precedent may go his way. We are dealing here with a very exceptional state of affairs, and one of the features of it is that we know very well some, at least, of the cases which will come up.
There is then the point made so clearly just now by my hon. Friend the Member


for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that I do not wish to repeat it. I said something of the same sort myself at an earlier stage, and I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the letter which he wrote to me about it. He will not consider me ungracious if I say that his letter did not quite meet the point as it was put just now by my hon. Friend and, I think, as I put it originally.
There is a third point. It seems to me that confusion may well arise if one of the titled parents of someone who is a Member of this House dies now, quite apart from the point about notice. It may well put people in a very difficult position. I do not know anything about age, health or chances, but I do know that buses can hit people. With not a very long period, but a distinct period to run, it would be unwise to postpone the operation of the Bill. It is likely to cause far more trouble in the long run than it would if one did not follow the usual rule—I refer to all Acts of Parliament—and let it come into operation when it is passed.
Therefore, apart from any party question, but merely for the convenience of everyone concerned, I should have wished that the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter and see whether something could be done to meet it. After all, we have reached only the Committee stage. We did not consider this point in any detail in the Select Committee, but—and I can only speak for myself—it did not occur to me that the Bill would not come into operation otherwise than at once. I just assumed that it would. That is the assumption that one would make unless there were some indication to the contrary. Although, if we looked carefully through HANSARD, no doubt we might have found some indication contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said just now, we were proceeding on the assumption that the provision would come into operation as soon as the Bill was passed.
This is a Bill which represents a great deal of common agreement. We have

been debating only minor matters in this Chamber. We attach considerable importance particularly to the drowning point, but it is not the whole basis of the Bill. Since it is to that extent an agreed Measure, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will look at this point again.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I was not a member of the Joint Select Committee, but I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says, namely, that there was no particular discussion on this point. Whatever assumptions people may have made, there certainly was no bargain. It was not part of what has been commonly called "the package deal". Of course, we can see that this is studied again in another place. I gladly agree to that. But I wanted to acquit myself—and I apologise if I did it with some heat—of the charge of not having carried out both the letter and the spirit of the matter. I think that the quotations which I have given do that adequately.
The only point which, I think, weighs against the precedents is that to which I drew attention, namely, that, although it is unlikely, a colleague of ours in the House of Commons could conceivably be affected. But I do not believe that that is sufficient to outweigh the precedents which I quoted.
I must, therefore, leave the matter to the Opposition. If they wish to register their opinion by a vote, I would advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, but I will see that this matter is considered in another place.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the position. We think that we should register our opinion. I am obliged—I am sure that we all are—to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look at the matter again, without giving any commitment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 113.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Aitken, Sir William
Baroford, Brian
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Allason, James
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Biggs-Davison, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bingham, R. M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bell, Ronald
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Barter, John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bishop, F. P.




Black, Sir Cyril
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Bourne-Arton, A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
James, David
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Brains, Bernard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brooman-White, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Anthony
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Lambton, Viscount
Roots, William


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Chataway, Christopher
Leavey, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Chichester Clark, R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Cleaver, Leonard
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooper, A. E.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Stodart, J. A.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crawley, Aldan
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Summers, Sir Spencer


Curran, Charles
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N,Ayrs)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


du Cann, Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Teeling, Sir William


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Errington, Sir Eric
Marlowe, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fisher, Nigel
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Freeth, Denzil
Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Gammans, Lady
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Goodhart, Philip
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Green, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Grosvenor, Lord
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woollam, John


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, Sir James
Worsley, Marcus


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pott, Percivall
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch



Hollingworth, John
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Francis
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Ian Fraser.


NOES


Albu, Austen
Evans, Albert
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fell, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fitch, Alan
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Benson, Sir George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bowles, Frank
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Bradley, Tom
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lubbock, Eric


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Anthony
McBride, N.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacColl, James


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
MacDermot, Niall


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
McInnes, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Callaghan, James
Hannan, William
MacPherson Malcolm (Stirling)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Chapman, Donald
Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, Archie


Collick, Percy
Henderson,Rt. Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.


Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.


Diamond, John
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dodds, Norman
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Hunter, A. E.
O'Malley, B. K.


Duthie, Sir William
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pargiter, G. A.







Parker, John
Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Pavitt, Laurence
Small, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Peart, Frederick
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, Frederick


Rankin, John
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Steels, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Reynolds, G. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Rhodes, H.
Swingler, Stephen
Wyatt, Woodrow


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Tomney, Frank



Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Wade, Donald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Ross, William
Warbey, William
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Redhead.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

Clause 7.—(RENTAL PAYMENTS BY PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS.)

7.4 p.m.

Mr. David James: I beg to move, in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(13) Any programme contractor who is required under the terms of his contract with the Authority to provide programmes which shall contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal specially to the tastes and outlook of persons in each of two or more areas (as defined by the Authority and approved by the Postmaster General) and, to comply with this requirement, has accordingly to maintain studios, offices or premises in more than one area, shall for the purposes of this section, make a separate return of his advertising receipts for each area, and the additional payments due from that programme contractor shall be separately computed and charged accordingly, to the intent that the Table in subsection (4) of this section shall apply by reference to each area taken separately.
As there has been so much controversy about the Bill, I must be specially careful in declaring an interest. I am a paid-up member of the Society of Authors, as hon. Members opposite—I am sorry to bore them with this a second time—know, and I am undoubtedly influenced by the fact that I was hi the film business for a couple of years as technical adviser to Ealing Studios during the making of "Scott of the Antarctic". We had three rather grizzly locations—in the Antarctic, 12,000 feet up in the Alps and on an ice field in Central Norway—and I grew

to appreciate what I believe to be the considerable qualities of the technicians in the industry.
I make no secret of the fact that when those people were thrown out of work, two or three years later, by virtue of the collapse of the film industry, it made a profound impression on my mind. It is possible that anything which I may have to say today may be influenced—I hope not, but it might be—by undue apprehension as to whether this Measure may not put some of my friends at risk of unemployment once again.
In the earlier stages, we were discussing the industry as a whole. This time, in so far as two certain companies may be mentioned, I ought in fairness to the House say that there is another situation which could conceivably add bias to my mind, namely, that certain scientific aberrations which I perpetrate from time to time around Loch Ness have been assisted by Associated Television. I do not think that this is so, but, in so far as the House should have the benefit of any doubt in my mind as to whether I may or may not have been influenced, I felt it safer to disclose that fact.
The arguments in favour of the Amendment are implicit in its wording. It may, however, help the House and hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee if I briefly recapitulate the circumstances leading up to the Amendment. It was common ground to both sides of the Committee and to the House that the television companies were not paying enough rental for a very valuable concession. This was common ground between the lot of us. The argument raged over how an appropriate rental could be devised. The view of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was that the gross advertising revenue was the only method that could be employed, because it was the only method which, in his view, could not be susceptible to tax evasion or minimisation, whichever one chooses to call it.
We opposed that view on the ground that while there was obviously a great deal of substance in my right hon. Friend's view, gross advertising revenue was of its nature an inflexible weapon which might involve returning to Parliament to get the rates altered and that net profit would be a far more satisfactory yardstick. I do not want to go over all the arguments again. My right hon. Friend carried the day. We retired bloody but unbowed, and I am prepared to accept that decision as being the decision of Parliament.
The Amendment arises directly out of the difficulties which we foresaw if the Postmaster-General's point of view prevailed. Since those days, incidentally, we have got over from a basis of gross advertising revenue to net advertising revenue. I thank my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General for that considerable alteration, which has, I believe, materially improved the Bill and made it easier for all sides.
As we now understand, the position of the smaller companies is substantially improved. Once again, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because they are saved the T.A.D. levy, which hit the large and small companies alike, and they get the advantage of the so-called free slice of £1½ million of advertising revenue, which they can take free of charge. In so far as that helps the small companies, all of us are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
It must, however, be noted that whereas, for a small regional company, the free slice represents 100 per cent. of its revenue, for any one of the so-called big four it represents only 12½ per cent. of their revenue. Therefore, from the outset, as the upper rate of the levy is 45 per cent, there must be doubt whether the big four companies can fulfil their obligations to the Independent Television Authority under Section 2 of the Act in providing the best possible form of television for the public.
There is, too, the further complication—and this is where I get on to individual companies—that Granada and Associated Rediffusion have single workings: that is to say, they have one franchise to operate one service in a certain area for five days a week. On

the other hand, A.B.C. and A.T.V. have a dual franchise. They have to operate five days a week in one place and two days at the weekend somewhere else. This is bound to lead to their having far greater production costs than the companies with single workings.
As a single case in point, A.B.C. is bound, under the terms of its contract with the I.T.A., to maintain studios in Manchester and Birmingham as it has to give a certain proportion of local material. It has also to run a third set of studios at Teddington, because there are a number of stars—everyone should realise that the economics of the industry are, most unfortunately in my view, but inescapably, geared to a star system of people who command their salaries in the international market—who will not go to Manchester or Birmingham, but demand fast cars to take them out to Teddington.
So it is obvious that A.B.C. and A.T.V., from the very nature of things, are bound to have a more expensive operation than the two companies with single workings. I will illustrate this with figures. I assure the Postmaster-General that I shall deal in millions only. One of the things which has bedevilled the Bill has been the fact that there has never been an agreed set of figures between the companies' advisers and his advisers. I do not believe for a minute that anyone was in bad faith. Obviously, one is dealing with a projection into the future. However, if I deal in round figures I think that it will stop our haggling and arguing over decimal points, which someone once referred to as "those damned dots".
Relatively speaking—I have confirmed this with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir. W. Wakefield)—excluding the fact that each company has some minor variations of cognate activities or even different activities, such as bowling alleys, which are aggregated and, therefore, prevent one from getting a clear picture, and using the published media figures and making one's own estimate for discounts, it can be said that the two companies with single workings have an advertising revenue of about £12 million a year, that their programme costs currently run at the rate of about £4 million to £5 million a year, and that, obviously,


their profits prior to tax emerge at about £7 million to £8 million. I am deliberately giving the figures roughly and vaguely because I am trying to paint a broad canvas and not a narrow one.
On the other hand, the two other companies are placed in very different circumstances. A.T.V.has about the same advertising revenue, or slightly less—about £11 million. Its production expenses are about £8 million as opposed to the £4 million to £5 million, and this is because of the double overheads and dual expenses involved in its programming. Its profit this year, as we saw in the newspapers yesterday, amounted to about £3 million—on an eleven-month year. A.B.C. is very unfortunately placed in that its advertising revenue is only £7½ million or thereabouts and its production costs are about £5 million—it should be noted that even that is more than the other two—leaving it with a profit of £2½ million.
If we can now extend these figures—I do not think that anyone would seriously dispute that they are roughly accurate—the impact of the levy on the profit of £3 million to £4 million left to the two companies with single workings would be to reduce their profits to between £1½ million and £2 million prior to tax, or to between £750,000 and £1 million after taxation. The impact of the levy on the two companies with dual workings would be to reduce their profits not to £4 million, but to £2 million and £1½ million respectively, leaving between £750,000 and £1 million in both cases.
7.15 p.m.
So far as one can possibly tell at present, it is obvious that the difference in the revenue between the four companies, whch are engaged in doing pretty well the same sort of work, is considerable. It is possible—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone would say so—that some companies are more efficient than others, and that there are economies which the two companies with dual workings could make. I will not dispute that for a minute. But the companies which have to maintain two sets of studios and two sets of offices and have dual overheads throughout in order to make two

sets of programmes are bound to feel the pinch more than companies not in such a situation.
In these circumstances, can one wonder that all four of the big companies which have a very major responsibility and whose gross revenue is attacked at the margin to the tune of 45 per cent. feel extremely apprehensive? They feel even more apprehensive on reading today's media report, which shows that, while independent television as a whole has had a slight increase in advertising revenue over the last quarter, that is entirely accounted for by one or two of the peripheral companies, and that the big four's advertising revenue has gone slightly down while that of the newspapers has risen owing to the impact of full double page or single page colour advertising due to web-offset printing. So they are in a very real sense in competition with the newspapers for the nation's advertising business.
At this point it is pertinent to raise the question of the Press. I have done some research and found out that the Mirror Group, on a capital of £80 million, recently clocked up £5 million in sales, £48 million in advertising and £13 million in profits. This is very big money, but because it has been going on for years no one is hot under the collar or expressing moral indignation about it. The Mail Group is slightly less open about its revenue, but on a capital of £16 million it has just declared a profit of a little over £4 million, or about 25 per cent.
The only reason why I bring the Press into this argument is that independent television and the Press are substantially doing the same sort of job. They are bringing to the notice of the general public such interesting matters as may occur in this House or on Lords cricket ground and the behaviour of Mr. Dexter and other people in the United Kingdom. They are dealing with the purveying of news and feature articles. But no one has ever suggested that the Press should have its advertising revenue attacked in this way. Moreover, the Press has alternative sources of revenue in the sale of the paper. It can put up the price of the paper.
On the other hand, the television companies depend solely and exclusively on their advertising revenue for their budgeting and programming. It is true that


there is a small element of export of films, but I am told that by the time the artists have had their royalties—it is right and proper that they should have them—and agents' commissions have been paid, and so on, the net return to the companies from this factor is very small indeed. Therefore, as I say, the companies feel apprehensive.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is likely to produce an alternative solution. He will admit the difficulty and the inflexibility, but he will claim that all this can be ironed out on Part I of the rental, the first rental which is paid to the I.T.A. in this instance in order to cover the direct costs of running the I.T.A. Incidentally, it will involve a change in concept as to what Part I rental is.
If we are really to iron out the differences in this way, it will involve some fairly hefty figures. I estimate that to put the two companies with the single franchise on the same basis as the two with the double franchise would involve increasing the rental of the former from about £1 million—in one case it is £895,000, but the House will appreciate that I am speaking in round figures—to something more like £2 million, while in the case of the two companies with the dual workings it would involve reducing their rental from £1 million to about £500,000.
This could put the four companies who do substantially the same job on a level peg basis. The snag is that this leads the companies which still have a reasonable margin to pretty well the same situation as those whose margin is perilously thin now. If we were to do it on the basis of leaving Associated Rediffusion and Granada as they are, it would lead to the ludicrous proposition of paying them to remain in business with A.B.C. and A.T.V. That cannot be a sensible decision for Parliament.
All these considerations have led to great apprehension in the industry, which has been heightened by the fact that A.T.V.'s profits have slumped in twelve months from £5 million to £3 million. Thus, even a year of general trade recession in the country can hit this highly marginal and knife-edged industry to the tune of 40 per cent. of its profits. Obviously, if a company feels that its profits

are so vulnerable that a profit of £1 million in one year could be a loss of £1 million the next year, it tends to take steps to protect itself against insolvency.
However, in the end, I do not believe that these companies will suffer. I do not believe that the big four will go out of business. I do not think that Mr. Norman Collins will need to take advantage of Lord Beaver brook's generous offer. [An Hon. Member: "Then wipe your tears."] I have no tears. I am not sorry for the commercial television companies, although I am sorry for Lord Beaverbrook, because he failed to recognise a good thing when he saw it. I am not weeping about the four big companies, or about the long-term future of television.
But I am worried about the general public, because I think I have shown that what the companies will do in these circumstances will be to reduce their activities in order to economise. They will economise either by cutting rehearsal time—and as we know from seeing plays it is already perilously low and inadequate in some cases—or reducing the time and money spent on research in individual programmes as they stand. Alternatively, they may reduce the number of programmes they make themselves and increase the number they buy from overseas.
Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do—probably even better—that what this will mean is redundancy. There is serious risk of redundancy in the industry. Fourteen trade unions, seven of them affiliated to the T.U.C. and seven not affiliated, have banded together and have been plugging this one for nearly six months, and in view of the stature of Mr. George Elvin and Sir Tom O'Brien, I am staggered that their trade union friends opposite have not paid attention to them.
I did not think that dog ate dog in this sort of matter, and that merely because someone springs from a miners' union he should necessarily take such a low view of representatives of technicians. But these people are being let down both by hon. Members opposite and, so I believe, by this House.

Mr. W. R. Williams: That, of course, is a lot of nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows


it. We have given the fullest possible consideration to the case, but no statistics whatever have been presented either in Standing Committee or anywhere else to justify what the hon. Member is saying. There will be an opportunity later this evening for the hon. Member and his hon. Friends to help the unions and the workers in the industry through an Amendment which we hope to move.

Mr. James: I am grateful to the hon. Member, not only for listening to long and kindly, but also for a very constructive suggestion. I will, naturally, listen to his Amendment, and any others to come. When the hon. Member says that he and his hon. Friends have found the evidence submitted by the unions wanting in substance, I wonder what serious attention was paid to the very weighty memorandum by Sir Tom O'Brien on the impact of the Entertainments Duty on the cinema industry.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member should face the situation. The Committee to which he refers—the Safeguards Committee—put forward positive proposals, one of which was that a statutory obligation should be placed on the programme companies to extend the proportion of their advertising revenue spent on programmes. The hon. Gentleman has referred to A.T.V. That company was spending 55 per cent. of its advertising revenue as profit.

Mr. James: I do not think that the hon. Member and I are so far apart on this. I, too, am keen that the programme companies should spend more money on programmes. That goes for A.T.V., as well as the rest, even though it has the highest programme costs. My point is that one must make certain that the money is there to do it. My concern is that unless we are prepared to give these companies in that position a double free slice the money will not be there. Unless we approve this Amendment, which makes sense, it will be utterly impossible to do that and see that the companies have money to spend on programmes.
I have laboured this point enough. The issue is simple. There are some companies on single franchise which can afford rental on net advertising revenue

and which will have a margin sufficient to take care of rising costs. The other companies are in a different position because of a dual franchise; they have to run two different sets of programmes and meet the costs accordingly.
Later tonight we shall come to the question of a second channel. With respect, I think that a certain amount of nonsense has been talked about the likelihood of outside people coming into this highly complex industry. I hope they do, but I think the chances of anyone getting off the ground in competition with existing companies is about as great as anyone successfully launching a new national paper. It involves years of expertise and hundreds of trained employees, and we must not forget that the B.B.C. will mop up a lot of skills.
If the service is to depend on the rationalisation of existing companies—there is a lot to be said for some of the Welsh companies amalgamating and for progressive companies like Anglia extending into the middle—they will not be able to rationalise unless advantage can be taken of this double franchise.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I do not wish to be discourteous to the House, but I think that even at this early stage it might be helpful if I were to seek to put the Amendment into its correct perspective. I hope that what I have to say will be helpful to the House and to my hon. Friend. First, I should like to make two short comments on what he has said. He referred to the fact that this Amendment would give a double free slice to A.T.V. and A.B.C. But it would go far beyond that. It would have the effect of taking them wholly out of the application of the 45 per cent. levy. That is an important fact which hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand.

Mr. James: But the Clause states that this application would be defined by the Authority and approved by the Postmaster-General. Surely this gives considerable discretion to the Postmaster-General in this matter.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: That may be, but the Amendment as drafted—and I have taken very careful legal advice on this—means


what I have said it means rather than what my hon. Friend has said.
Secondly—and I say this in perfectly good humour—my hon. Friend referred to the fortunes of the newspaper world as distinct from the fortunes of commercial television. He said that the profits of the Daily Mirror, for example, were about £13 million a year on £80 million of capital invested. The comparable figures for commercial television, as the Government estimate them for the first year of operation of the levy, are a profit before tax of £15 million, which is higher than the profit of the Daily Mirror, on a capital which I cannot give with precision but which is approximately half the capital of the Daily Mirror. I do not think that it is very wise to draw comparisons between the fortunes of newspapers and those of commercial television.
Having got those two small points out of the way, perhaps I can come to the Amendment itself. My hon. Friend argued that the expenditure of contractors who function in two areas is particularly heavy because they require two sets of offices and two sets of studios. I also understood him to argue that one or more of these companies, because of its split franchise, was required to produce two sets of programmes—those were my hon. Friend's actual words.
I have examined this argument in great detail to ascertain whether it is valid. As the House knows, the two companies which these Amendments are mainly designed to help are A.B.C. and A.T.V. A.B.C. operates at the weekend both in the North and in the Midlands. A.T.V., alone of the big four companies, puts out programmes for seven days a week, Monday to Friday in the Midlands and in London on Saturday and Sunday.
Let us take first the case of A.B.C., a case about which I know a little, because I often watch its programmes in Liverpool at the weekends. I have noticed repeatedly—and this is in no sense a criticism of A.B.C.—that as a general rule it puts out identical programmes in the Midlands and in the North. A.B.C. produces about two-thirds of its programmes itself. In effect, whatever we may say about dual franchises, the franchise which A.B.C. enjoys is for all practical purposes a single franchise for the weekend only covering a very

large area served on Monday to Friday by A.T.V. in the Midlands and by Granada in the North. Therefore, the additional programme costs which are incurred by this company owing to the split franchise cannot be substantial in the nature of things.
That leads to the question which has no doubt bothered my hon. Friend as it did me until I came to examine it. It is why A.B.C. should be doing less well than Granada or Associated Rediffusion, for example. The answer is that its franchise for two days does not produce anything like the same revenue as those of the other large companies. The costs of producing popular weekend programmes are naturally high and the profit margin of A.B.C., though still high by present standards, is reduced on that account.
The case of A.T.V. is different. It alone of all the big four has to provide programmes every night of the week, five days in the Midlands and two days at the weekend in London. It is perfectly true that A.T.V. maintains separate studios in the Midlands and in London and that its overheads are clearly higher on that account. But the main reason why A.T.V. is doing less well than Granada and A.R. is that it has to find and pay for programme material for seven days a week on a revenue which is comparable with that of the other two companies who are on the air only five days a week.
Therefore—and I assure my hon. Friends that I have been into this matter in great detail—the inequalities of which my hon. Friend complains do not arise so much because these two companies have split franchises as for other and in each case quite different reasons. In the case of A.B.C. it is because the programme area, although big, does not generate as much revenue as those of the rest of the big four. In the case of A.T.V. it is because it has to find about 40 per cent. more programme material than does Granada or Associated Rediffusion.
I do not know, nobody knows, what the pattern of these contracts is likely to be after July 1964. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that the areas remain substantially unchanged. The Amendment refers to cases where the contractor is obliged to provide material with special appear to people in two or more areas. It is quite true


that A.T.V. is obliged to do this by its contract with the Authority, but I am informed that A.B.C. is not so obliged. This, of course, could be changed if a new contract were drawn up.
Here, in fairness, I ought to tell the House that another company comes into the picture. I am informed that Southern Television has studios in both Dover and Southampton and puts out special programmes from Dover for the South-East. It is not required to do so by contract, but it does it by an understanding with the Authority. Of course, if the Authority chose to vary the contract for A.B.C, requiring A.B.C. to do certain things as it requires A.T.V., it could hardly refuse to vary the Southern contract as well to include such a requirement. By extending this practice, the concession envisaged in the Amendment could very well become much larger than my hon. Friend indicated. That is one of the defects of the Amendment.
However, I appreciate that my hon. Friends see this Amendment as a means of helping these two companies. How much would it help? If in 1964 this Clause, as modified by the Amendment, were to apply, A.B.C. would pay—and I am not dealing in round figures; I am a bit suspicious not of my hon. Friend's round figures but of round figures as a whole, although I will not dilate on that—£702,000 less in levy and A.T.V. would pay £1,491,000 less. The total yield of the levy would be abated by approximately £2,200,000.
All this is not to say that it is neither possible nor fair to help these two companies. Indeed, if it is possible I should like to find some method of doing so, because there are obviously inequalities between these contracts which have existed since the start. I do not think that that means that the levy itself is misconceived either in principle or in practice. It means that the inequality in these contracts arises from the decisions of the Authority as to how the contracts are to be allocated.
It therefore seems entirely reasonable that the Authority should use means within its own control to go at least some way to iron out these inequalities in the financial sense. What the Authority has proposed to me is to vary the allocation of the first part of the

rental, that is Part I of the rentals as referred to in the Bill, in such a way that the best contracts financially would pay the highest rentals. It is entitled to do this in law. I assure the House that that is so, and it is right to do it from the point of view of equity. The Authority consulted me on this proposal some time ago, and I agreed with it, and the Authority is now in the process of working it out in detail. It will help companies with contracts which are less valuable than others.
I think that my hon. Friend and the House are entitled to know how much room exists for manoeuvre, and I should like briefly to give the significant figures. In 1962–63 the rentals paid to the Authority totalled £5½ million. The big four contributed £3½ million towards that figure. A.B.C. paid just over £630,000; A.T.V. paid just over £1 million; Associated Rediffusion paid just over £950,000; and Granada paid £850,000. The estimated position for 1964–65 when all this business starts is that the total head A rentals will be about £7½ million as opposed to £5½ million, and the big four's share is likely to be £5½ million instead of £3½ million.
If this were shared out on the basis of the present proportions, which possibly is what these companies are expecting, A.B.C.'s costs would rise by nearly £500,000 and A.T.V.'s by nearly £750,000. If, however, these companies have contracts which are inherently less favourable than those of Granada or Associated Rediffusion, I think that it would be right for the I.T.A. to ask the wealthier companies to shoulder a higher proportion of this increase.
As I indicated, the I.T.A. is now working out how it will set about doing this, and I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that it has a substantial amount of money to play with, if I might use that expression. It clearly can do a great deal to iron out the inequalities which exist within the big four.
I conclude by saying that the House really has to choose between what the Amendment proposes and what I have indicated. Both my hon. Friend and I recognise these inequalities in contracts. The difference between my hon. Friend's proposal and what I have said is that his proposal would eat into the levy whereas mine would not I hope that


what I have said will persuade my hon. Friend that I am alive to the case he has put forward. I am not wholly unsympathetic to it, but I hope that in view of what I have said he may be prepared to consider agreeing not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Roy Mason: I cannot let the Amendment go without first condemning the hypocritical attitude of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp Town (Mr. David James) and his hon. Friends. Throughout the Committee stage he and his hon. Friends—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is an observation which the hon. Member must withdraw. We do not allow the word "hypocrisy".

Mr. Mason: If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly withdraw it. What the hon. Gentleman said was a series of misleading inexactitudes, particularly when he chastised my hon. Friends for, as he said, ignoring the demands from the trade unions within the industry. It is for this reason that I described him as I did.
The hon. Member's attitude is wholly deplorable, because throughout the Committee stage the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends chastised my hon. Friends for not falling into line with the big four's policy on the contentious and controversial Clause 7, yet when the matter was debated on the Floor of the House on Monday, and we dealt in full with that contentious part of Clause 7, not one of the seven hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed it in Committee on the pretence that they were assisting the trade unions, whereas they were in fact backing the big four policy, spoke on the matter, even though there was mass lobbying in the Central Lobby at the time.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. David James: There is a simple answer to this. We regarded the decision of the Committee upstairs as being definite and final. We had no reason to go back on it. We accepted the judgment of the Committee.

Mr. Mason: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I say that that is a hypocritical attitude.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The use of the word "hypocritical" has on many occasions been ruled out of order. The hon. Member must not use it.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry to be ruled out of order, but what I have said is correct, and it can be proved.
The seven profiteering lobbyists, in support of the big four policy, pressed the Postmaster-General about this and tried to chastise my hon. Friends on the ground that they were attacking trade union policy. Yet, when the matter was discussed on the Floor of the House, and there was mass lobbying by trade unionists in the Central Lobby, there was not a peep or a squeak from the seven hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. David James: I met as many of those people as I could, including Tom O'Brien and George Elvin. The hon. Gentleman's outburst is not really directed at me. He is trying to salve his conscience in relation to his trade union comrades.

Mr. Mason: Members of the trade unions and of other organisations lobby Members so that they will voice their protests in the House. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were noticeably silent on the day in question.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I was a member of the Committee and spoke strongly about this matter during our discussion of it. I read the views of the unions and supported them, particularly on the analogous position regarding entertainments tax, in my usual strong language. When it was impossible to maintain that point, I had sufficient respect for the House not to repeat the argument all over again.

Mr. Mason: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is adopting an attitude as bad as that adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, because this is the place where voices should be raised. These matters should be mentioned in this Chamber. Because hon. Gentlemen opposite did not get their way on the contentious part of Clause 7, they banded together and brought in the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to assist them to make a further fight on an aspect which had


nothing to do with assisting the trade unions.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their demands, and in the regard which they profess to have for the trade unions, why did they not assist us on the new Clause "Authority to ensure the showing of British television films", which we debated on Monday? It was purposely drafted to help people within the industry and particularly those in the film industry. There was not a squeak from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is this attitude which led me to use the adjective that I did.
I was pleased with the Postmaster-General's reply, because the companies he mentioned, A.B.C. and A.T.V., are two of the big four, who are responsible for 85 per cent. of the network. The hon. Gentleman based his argument on the fact that these companies put out another programme on local matters, but this amounts to only 15 per cent. of the total. We have to remember that 85 per cent. is putout by the big four, and now the hon. Gentleman makes a special plea on that ground, so it is not invalid to say that two different arguments are being adduced.
It is not my intention to delay the proceedings of the House, and having risen solely because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kemptown about the trade unions, I shall now resume my seat.

Mr. David James: I would be grateful if the hon. Member would clear up one point. On Clause 7 there were seven Amendments, and five of them sought to leave out "gross". Which would the hon. Member suggest we should have supported?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite follow what this has to do with the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I intervene for only one reason. That is to take up something which was said by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) this evening. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with the anger of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), but I shall not be angry because

I think that the collapse of the lobby opposite is not something to be angry about, but something to laugh about. How ridiculous it was to hear all their high-flown speeches in Committee upstairs and then to find them collapse down here. That is something to laugh about. I do not agree that everything is settled in Committee upstairs. One does not get results in that way. To get results one has to keep fighting on every opportunity. That cannot be the reason why certain hon. Members opposite have sat silent here in the House.
I intervene to take up a particular point made by the hon. Member for Kemptown. He said that he would not make his case tonight on the basis that these companies would go into bankruptcy, and that therefore they needed to accept the offer of the Beaverbrook papers to take them over. He said that his case did not rest on the extreme financial difficulties in which they are likely to find themselves. What the hon. Member said in Committee upstairs was the exact opposite. He said:
The point about a knife edge is that one can fall off either way, either into big money or into bankruptcy. I submit that it is very likely under the provisions of this Bill as at present drafted those concerned will fall off on the wrong side."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2nd May, 1963. c. 850.]
Now that the whole thing has been exploded and shown to be ridiculous, the hon. Member says the absolute opposite.
I say in all friendliness to the hon. Member that I am not getting angry because I think that this is rather funny, but this sort of thing does not do the case of television companies any good at all. It means that their case has been so exaggerated upstairs that no one will believe it in future if the hon. Member is not careful. He must be more careful. The big four figures were exploded almost immediately after they were given. The hon. Member fell for them and presented them in Committee and exaggerated them. Now the wheel has turned full circle and here in the House he says exactly the opposite.
On this Amendment, he has a case in the sense met by the Postmaster-General. I hope that in continuation of his withdrawal from the position the hon. Member took upstairs he will now accept the very proper offer made by


his right hon. Friend as the way in which to handle this problem.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am not part of any pressure group or faction. I do not give a damn about pressure groups—I hope it is in order to say that—on either side of the House. I think there has been a great deal of over-statement on both sides.
The position of the so-called seven lobbyists has been mentioned. Seven hon. Friends of mine voted in a certain way at a certain time, but I do not think they can be all lumped together because they happened to share a point of view at that particular moment. It is true that some are interested parties, indeed some are directors. I have one sitting beside me at the moment.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I am not a director of any television programme company.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member is, however, a director of Rediffusion Limited. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) has been vigorously attacked. He is not a director of any company I know of, but he seems to have a burning personal sincerity to try to improve television. I do not always agree with him on the way in which he goes about it. I have had long conversations with him to try to learn his views and to try to persuade him that they are not always in the interests of the industry.
We find ourselves in the present difficulty because the Bill, as originally drafted, gave the Postmaster-General the job of fixing the amount of money these companies should pay back to the Exchequer out of their profits. That was regarded as unacceptable. It was unacceptable in the minds of many hon. Friends and by the seven hon. Members who have been spoken about. They have gone on public record on that. They have accepted the principle of the levy, and that has been accepted by the House. I entirely sympathise with my right hon. Friend, who said that this Amendment would wreck the whole thing. It would destroy most of its effect, but I welcome what was said about the way in which I.T.A. can help those who find themselves in particular difficulties. All the way along we have tried to help individual companies. We have had the business of dealing with the small companies and today we have heard

a suggestion of a concession. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment because I think the Postmaster-General has gone a long way to alleviate the difficulty.

Mr. Victor Yates: The assumption that is being put into the whole of this discussion by some hon. Members is that Clause 7 is absolutely right in all respects. In Committee I had some reservations. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that it is difficult to be absolutely certain that this is the right method. While I agree that the Postmaster-General has put forward a very reasonable argument on the Amendment and has gone some way to meet objections, that does not prevent trade unions and others from feeling some concern about the future.
I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley because we argued about it in Committee. I know the trade unions are genuinely concerned about the future. It must not simply be brushed aside as if it were of no account. I have had the opportunity since the Committee met of going over the A.T.V. studios. I was astonished to find the very large labour force of artisans, craftsmen and so on employed there. It was pointed out to me that even before the company embarked on the programme "Man of the World" it had to decide that it would cost over £½ million. I think "Robin Hood" cost £350,000, and that had to be agreed before the programme was made. One can understand that the companies are concerned that the money should be available. The trade unions are concerned about the possibility of these large programmes being reduced and about there being an uncertain future.
I do not like the principle of taxing advertising revenue. I do not like indirect taxation. I should not like it if for Income Tax we could not deduct expenses before paying tax. In view of the objections raised and the possible evasions, I could not, however, propose an alternative. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley would wish to give the impression that on this side of the House we were unmindful of the views of the trade unions. I have read their memorandum very carefully. I have great respect for Mr. George Elvin and the other leaders of the trade unions. We have met


them separately to hear their point of view and we have put before them the difficulties as we see them. I think that it ought to be said that we have listened to them and that we appreciate the very sincere arguments that they put forward.
I believe that we are under an obligation to the workers in the television industry to see that at all stages expenditure on its programmes and on good broadcasting will not be reduced. Whatever our point of view, we want that assurance, and I am sure that the Postmaster-General ought to be able to assure us that at least these important programmes which involve the employment of labour on a vast scale will not be reduced.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Mason: I rise only to put it on record that my hon. Friend did not participate in the debate on Monday dealing with Clause 7. If he will look in the Official Report of Monday, he will see by column 968 that my remarks made a full column expressing the view of trade unionists.

Mr. Yates: My hon. Friend must not think that he can get away by suggesting that just because I do not happen to be present on every possible occasion when the matter is under discussion I have lost interest. In Committee upstairs, my hon. Friend certainly gave me the impression—and I was a member of the Committee—that he brushed aside the opinions of the trade unions. Let him say quite frankly that he views with some concern the opinions of the trade unions and that they will be adequately considered.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to get involved in a quarrel between hon. Members opposite on the merits or not of trade unions, but do not hon. Members opposite see that if we have the second commercial channel as soon as possible there should be enough jobs to look after all these people's profits?

The Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): We cannot discuss the second channel on this Amendment.

Mr. Yates: All I want is for the Postmaster-General to appreciate that however small a company may be, if it is employing thousands of workers and there is the fear that in some way the money

will not be there or that the method of doing it is not right, their views will be adequately considered and that there will be no such danger.
I do not say that the trade unions are absolutely right in this. I am not sure about the Government's position. It may be that we shall have another Government and that they may have to do something different from this. This may not be the absolute solution to it. I do not commit myself either one way or the other. I expressed some misgivings in Committee and I admit that I cannot propose a system which would not be open to objections and which would be satisfactory in every respect.
I do not blame hon. Members opposite. I have been in minority groups myself and I have raised matters in a minority of one. Because I have not done so on every conceivable occasion, it does not mean that I was not right. This is a democratic assembly and we ought to examine the views put forward on both sides with adequate care and consideration. That is the only way that we can get a really good Bill. If we do not get it now we shall chase the Postmaster-General to see that we get it eventually.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am all for hard hitting in these matters, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) should have said what he did say that I have been brought in by my hon. Friends to bolster up some sort of pressure group. My views in this matter are, I think, distasteful to most of the big four companies, and not accepted by some hon. Members. There have been strong differences of opinion, but they have not cut across any party lines at all, but have been between Members on the same side of the House.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. To begin with, I base myself completely on what the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) said in the debate on Monday, as reported in the Official Report, column 986, that
We want to ensure that the resources of the companies are adequate to meet the new requirements and the new demands which will be made upon them as the service develops, and as the very costly installations and instruments are introduced into the service."—[Official Report, 24th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 986.]


That covers what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) has just said about the trade unions.
I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) posed the problem as reported in column 974, when he referred to the observation of my right hon. Friend about the authority taking steps to seek to even out the nature of the differences between contracts especially as they affect the big four.
The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the special problem of A.T.V. and the split franchise
…between London and the Midlands, involving it in heavy excessive overheads. This can make its tax position unfortunate in special circumstances."—[Official Report, 24th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 975.]
If that is true it seems to mean that the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has been referring will suffer. Therefore, I want to be satisfied that the Authority has the power to deal with this matter. May I ask my right hon. Friend these two questions? There is a fund of £5½ million to play with in this respect. He used the phrase "play with", or someone else did. The total in 1964–65 will be something over £7 million, of which the big four pay £5½ million. There is that fund to use for adjustment. I hope that I understood my right hon. Friend about that. I also want to know whether the discretion of the Authority will be unfettered to deal with this matter, or are certain rules and regulations to be laid down for it by my right hon. Friend, or will he give the Authority discretion to deal with this matter in the way that it thinks right?

Mr. Willey: I hope that we shall be able to expedite our proceedings, because we have a very long way to go. I know that this is an important matter, but I should like to emphasise the view we take on this side of the House.
We have taken the view consistently that what was required and what has been missing in the past was a realistic rental for the exercise of the public franchise. I have criticised the Government for not tackling this problem earlier. Now the Government have introduced this formula—and it is the best formula which has been put to us—that a levy should be raised on the advertising revenue. When we consider a rental we also con-

sider the different circumstances in different cases, and I think that it is fortunate, if we regard this as a rental, that it has two elements and that there is room for adjustment in the other element.
I can think of other factors that ought to be brought to mind, such as Granada, which has the exceptional expense of producing in Manchester. It is right that it produces there and I should like the production to continue in Manchester and not be prejudiced. That is a circumstance which has to be taken into account. The hon. Member mentioned another.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that we need an assurance, but I gather from the Postmaster-General that he is satisfied that there is sufficient scope to make the adjustments which should be made. I should support him in saying that in such a matter it is best to leave this to the discretion of the Authority, which is well versed in the different circumstances and can, therefore, make the adjustment.

Mr. Bevins: Perhaps by leave of the House I may be allowed to make one or two comments, particularly in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).
I have taken note of what was said by all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. On the best estimate which the Government can make, the collective profits after paying levy of all the companies in 1964–65, the first year of the levy, will be rather more than £15 million.
The two principal financial figures which enter into that calculation are, first, the estimate of advertising revenue, which is not a figure which has been "cooked up" in the Post Office, but has come from the best experts we can find in the advertising world, and, secondly, the estimated costs of the companies, which we have obtained from the Independent Television Authority. I think it fair to say that this is an honest estimate of the probable position in the first year of the levy.
It is worth pointing out to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) that when the Bill is law the revenue derived by the companies from the sale of programmes will not be subject to the application of the levy. To


that extent, companies will be under a greater incentive to produce programmes than they are at present. I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the companies must have adequate resources if they are to be able to produce programmes of the right quality and in the right numbers.
The hon. Member asked me whether the Authority would have unfettered discretion to act on the basis to which I referred when making my first speech, and the answer is "Yes". My right hon. and learned Friend may remember the provision in the 1954 Act in which the financial injunction upon the Authority is very vague. They were
to conduct their affairs so as to secure that their revenues
are at least sufficient
to meet ail sums properly chargeable to revenue account",
and in Clause 7 we see that these Head A payments ought to be payments representing—these are the operative words—
what appear to the Authority to be the appropriate contributions of the respective programme contractors".
I repeat that we have taken very good legal advice on this point, and I assure my hon. and learned Friend that there will be no impediment here.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hitchin): My right hon. Friend said that the Authority has infinite power in this matter. May we have an assurance that it will use that discretion and authority?

Mr. Bevins: It was the Authority itself which in the first place made this proposal to me, and I accepted it.

Mr. David James: Before asking my right hon. Friend a final question, may I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for what I regard as his very kindly and constructive speech? It is nice to know that occasionally one's good intentions and credentials are not in doubt.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to dot the "i's" and to cross the "t's" of the assurance which he has given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)? Is it his intention that the Authority should use part of the £5½ million to level up the

two companies, which we all agree are on very fine margins, so that they have enough margin for new programmes, rather than to level them down?

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. We are trying to get on with the Bill. I did not hear the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) ask leave of the House to speak again, but he is making a long speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) does not need the leave of the House. The proposer of an Amendment on Report stage of a Bill which has been in Committee upstairs has the right to speak more than once.

Mr. David James: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was by sheer inadvertence that I was right, and I was more than willing to apologise in the belief that I was wrong.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the spirit of his remarks means that he would propose to level up the margins rather than to level down by using the I.T.A.'s £5½ million?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that I can add to what I have said. I have been as specific as any Minister can be on this question. At the end of the day it is a matter for the Authority and not for the Postmaster-General. But, having said that, I think that the whole House understands the spirit in which the Authority may approach it.

Mr. David James: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8.—(NEWSPAPER SHAREHOLDINGS.)

8.15 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Ray Mawby): I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, to leave out from "that" to the first "the" in line 32 and to insert:
the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest".
It might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we discussed the Amendment in line 43.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the pleasure of the House, it is agreeable.

Mr. Mawby: These Amendments are designed to implement undertakings given by my right hon. Friend in Committee to indicate a little more clearly what the Government had in mind when reference was made to abuse by newspaper interests. He accepted that there was some merit in a reference to where the continuance of newspaper shareholdings was contrary to the public interest. The drafting of the Amendment differs very slightly. It has been the general feeling of the Committee that the word "abuse" has not a sufficiently clear meaning, and we believe that the words in the Amendment are more in keeping with the views of the Standing Committee and will make clearer to the world at large exactly what we mean when we refer to abuse by newspaper holdings.

Mr. Willey: I thank the hon. Member for meeting us on this point. It does not meet our major argument against Press interests in the programme companies, but it certainly improves the definition. We had doubts about the word "abuse", and I am certain that the words of the Postmaster-General will considerably improve the Clause.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I welcome this slight clarification, because I feel that this question of Press interests and Press interference might become more dangerous in the future rather than less. There is a move to have more and more localised programmes and news bulletins, and newspaper interests, particularly in some of the smaller companies, might have the very bad effect that the whole news-giving system in a particular area came under virtually one interest. That would have to be very carefully watched by the I.T.A., and I am glad to think that it will do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 43, leave out from "that" to end of line and insert:
the existence of those shareholdings has led or is leading to results which are contrary to the public interest".—[Mr. Bevins.]

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "to" to insert:
rescind, postpone commencement of or".
This Amendment does two things. First, it adds the word "rescind" to the proviso to Clause 8(3), which means that the Postmaster-General can make an order

rescinding a period of suspension imposed by an order under subsection (2) before it begins without having to lay the rescinding order before Parliament and to obtain affirmative Resolutions. This is to meet the situation in which an order has been made for the Authority's obligation to transmit programmes to be suspended as from a date some little way ahead, but before that date arises, the matter which has been contrary to the public interest might have been terminated, for example, by the sale of the shareholdings involved.
The proviso, however, as at present drafted, does not apply to such a case where the period of suspension has not yet begun. If the Postmaster-General wished to rescind an order before it had taken effect he would need to lay the rescinding order in draft before Parliament, and it could not take effect until the necessary affirmative Resolutions had been passed. By that time the period of suspension provided for by the original order, particularly if the House were in Recess at the time, might have begun, contrary to everybody's intention. This is clearly wrong.
It is true that the difficulty might be minimised if the Postmaster-General made an order for revocation very soon after the period of suspension had begun; he could do this without laying the order or obtaining an affirmative Resolution under the proviso as it stands. But it would be very inconvenient for the period of suspension to operate at all in the circumstances, and clearly the proviso should be altered rather than have to take the risk of having to use such an expedient.
If we contrast this with the procedure envisaged under Clause 8(1),we find that if the I.T.A. had given notice operative at a future date and the matter contrary to the public interest had been rectified before the notice operated, the I.T.A. could withdraw the notice before it had taken effect, with the consent of my right hon. Friend.
The second thing that the Amendment does is to add the words "postpone commencement of" to the proviso to Clause 8(3), which means that my right hon. Friend can make an Order postponing the commencement of a period of suspension imposed by an Order under subsection (2) without having to lay the


postponement Order before Parliament and to obtain affirmative Resolutions. This is to meet the case where, say, a period of suspension is due to start on 1st September and on 15th August the contractor states that it is not possible to put matters right—for example, to dispose of the necessary shareholdings—by that date but it will be possible to do so within another week or another month. My right hon. Friend would, if he considered the plea for extension justified, be able to make an Order postponing the suspension until, say, 1st October, without going to Parliament.
Thus the procedure for making a rescinding Order and a postponement Order will be the same as the procedure for making a revocation Order which terminates a period of suspension after it has begun. We believe that this is an action that we ought to take to ensure that we can cover the cases I have mentioned and yet not take away from the House what are rightly its rights.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(PROVISION OF NEWS.)

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 12, line 13, after first "news", to insert "and news features".
This is a very simple Amendment which I hope to deal with quickly. In this part of the Clause the Government propose to amend Section 3 of the 1954 Act which lays down various basic instructions to the Authority, such instructions as that its programmes shall not include items which offend against good taste or decency. It is enjoined to maintain a proper balance in its programmes. It is laid down that proper proportions of recorded matter should be used, and so on.
The Postmaster-General now wants to amend those basic instructions. In spite of asking that those instructions shall include the instruction that there shall be due accuracy and impartiality in news, he is also adding that a sufficient time in the programmes shall be devoted to news. If we are to say that sufficient time should be devoted to news as such, we might complete the picture by saying "and news features". The obvious reason for this is that nowadays news is presented not only in the form of straight

reporting. It is also presented—and often more attractively—in the form of news features.
Independent Television News not only puts on the news bulletins and produces programmes like "Roving Report", which is first-class material and a programme well worth watching. Some of the companies produce programmes like "This Week", which is a first-class rival to "Panorama" and a first-class news feature programme. It is right to lay down in our basic instructions that there should be a proper proportion of news features as well as of news.
On an Amendment like this, every hon. Member would like to pay tribute to I.T.N. It provides a first-class service on independent television. We all have our grouses at times, but I have never had any real cause to complain about its impartiality. I have every confidence that the amount of news put over by I.T.A. at the moment is sufficient. After all, we are not complaining in this part of the Clause. We are simply rewording the instructions.
Another point worth making is the good effect of I.T.N. and its news and news features. When I.T.N. was first started in 1955, one of the immediate results of its first-class reporting and its general activity was an improvement in the quality of B.B.C. news bulletins. This is one of the most extraordinary things that happened. I.T.N. shot ahead with its technique. The B.B.C. had to wake up and begin to catch up because of the enormous strides I.T.N. was making. I do not think we have any complaint about that. In moving the Amendment I certainly make no complaint. It is a simple Amendment. I hope that it is acceptable to the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has tabled this Amendment. I am glad to think that most hon. Members are very interested in and concerned with this point in the Bill. The question of balance has always been vexatious to both sides of the House. Everybody feels that one system or other is biased against his own party.
There is an important point on which I should like an answer from my right hon. Friend. I refer to the question of balance in an individual programme. Is


the Bill to leave the House with no attempt at dealing with the difficult problem which arises from the suggestion that balance is achieved in a series of broadcasts if three are biased one way and three are biased another way? That is a most unsatisfactory state of balance, in most people's view. Is this problem dealt with anywhere in the Bill? If it is not, it should be.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Having said a good many critical things about commercial television during the course of our earlier proceedings here and also in Committee upstairs, I should like to take the opportunity of echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has just said about the very high standard of the Independent Television News. In technique, in presentation and in fairness, it has done a very valuable job, and I would not disagree with what my hon. Friend said about its stimulating effect on news and news features presented by the B.B.C.
I am a little alarmed at what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has just said about the balance of programmes. It is fair to say that, from a purely technical broadcasting point of view, it is very difficult always to present all points of view in the space of a short programme. All television programmes dealing with serious subjects are in some ways too short. When a serious and controversial issue is being discussed, an issue which perhaps has ramifications which have to be explained and when reference has to be made to its history and the way it has developed, it is not always possible in the course of one programme to put conflicting points of view.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Since making my previous remarks I have, I think, found in Clause 16 the answer to part of the question I asked, for it states that a series of programmes may be considered as a whole. However, that may result in grave bias because it may depend upon who appears first in the programme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Members will be getting wide of the Amendment if they discuss that matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is a difficult problem, but I feel that the provision made in the Bill is satisfactory. One cannot insist that every programme dealing with every controversial subject must contain all points of view in one programme.
I understand that the following Amendment standing in my name—in line 13, after first "news", insert "and daily television broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings"—has not been selected, and I am not therefore at liberty to discuss the question of the televising of Parliamentary proceedings. However, I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept that a slightly anomalous position seems to exist. We require, by legislation or the terms of the Charter, that the B.B.C. in sound radio shall devote each day a specified time to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. No such provision is made for television.
Although sound radio has maintained an audience which some people find surprising despite the competition of television, many people who are interested in current affairs and who should have the proceedings in Parliament brought to their attention are more likely to watch television than to listen to the radio. It seems anomalous that there should be no requirement that a proportion of the time on both channels—or however many television channels there may be—should not be devoted as a requirement to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Mawby: I do not think that we need spend a great deal of time on this point. The important aspects of it have been dealt with particularly on the question of news and news features. At first sight the Amendment may appear unnecessary, particularly in view of the standards that are maintained on the programmes which have been mentioned, "This Week" and a number of other news features. There appears to be a healthy situation in this respect and at present these programmes feature interviews with suitable people during news periods, explanations of highlights of the news and so on. All these things are very welcome. I join in paying tribute to Independent Television News, which has done a splendid job and is producing a first-class news service.


Many of its feature programmes have been of the highest possible standard.
I was attracted by the way in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) moved his Amendment. I believe that it would do no harm to write it into the Bill and so to make it even more clear what we want to do. I suggest, therefore, that we accept the Amendment.
If I do not deal with all the points that have been raised I hope that I will be forgiven. The question of balance in individual programmes is always a difficult matter to write clearly into a Bill or charter because there are certain series of programmes, other than party political broadcasts, which deal with different points of view. There might, for example, be a series on Communism and Fascism. If one demands that the programmes must have a proper balance in every case it is possible that one may lose much of the point of what can be brought out in such a series of programmes. It is important for us to keep a sense of balance in this matter.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is there not a grave danger, even if one has a balanced series, that the balance will not be maintained if the individual programmes do not appear at the same sort of peak times; if one appears at a peak time and the other at an off-peak period. In such a case one might not get a proper balance. Does my hon. Friend agree with this view?

Mr. Mawby: This is an extremely important matter, and we shall probably argue until the end of time on the subject of proper impartiality. We believe that we have written the requirement into Clause 16 as clearly as possible, and that it will be quite clear to a programme contractor that if there was any suggestion at all, even in a series, of a tendency towards partiality to any group of individuals or opinions the Clause would really bite.
I think that we have this tied up, and if the House is prepared to accept the Amendment we shall make clear to the outside world what we mean.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Certain communications having taken place, is the

Assistant Postmaster-General able to say something about the requirements to televise the proceedings of this House?

Mr. Mawby: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said all the way through that the B.B.C.'s methods of operation will be debated in this House later, when he will have an opportunity to press for the same commitment in regard to television as to sound, or to argue that, because television has not the same obligation, we should take it away from sound.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we have gone far enough on this point. It does not arise on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(CONTRACTS FOR PROGRAMMES.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, at the end to insert:
(f) will provide the Authority a statement of accounts in such form as the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury may require and with a view to its publication in the general report prepared by the Authority.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the accounts of a programme company are made available in standard form, and appear in the annual report of the Authority. I am sure that everyone will welcome this proposal. The companies themselves will be most anxious to show the details of their losses so that their position may be reconsidered by this House, and as those who have spoken for them are so sure that the companies' position will deteriorate as a result of this Bill, I hope that the Amendment will prove acceptable to the Postmaster-General and to all hon. Members.

Mr. Mawby: I think that this Amendment has been put down mainly as a result of a misunderstanding, and probably because of the problems that it was said would be involved if the levy in Clause 7 was made on profits. In fact, Clause 7(7) already provides that the contracts shall provide for the I.T.A. to receive the information it needs about advertising receipts in order to compute additional payments, and Clause 7(10) states that the I.T.A. shall prepare a special account of the additional payments, which account shall be sent to


the Comptroller and Auditor General, and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend can ask the Authority, under Section 15(5) of the original Act, for any information or document with respect to the financial transactions of the Authority. The Authority, for its own purposes, can obtain from the contractors information about the costs incurred in providing programmes and their receipts from advertising, under Clause 11(4.d), and can obtain access to the contractors' books, accounts and records under Clause 11(4,e).
Two main objections of principle can be raised against the idea of the Government dictating the form of accounts to be published in the I.T.A. Annual Report. They are that it is the directors of the programme companies upon whom the duty lies in the first place to decide, subject to the general requirements of the Companies Act, 1948, what information they should publish, and that it would be unreasonable to require the companies to provide detailed information for publication in this way about revenue and costs on their television activities which would be of value to their competitors in the same business.
Under Section 15(3) and (4) of the principal Act, the Annual Report of the I.T.A. is to be a general report of its proceedings, and to include its own accounts, and with the Amendment as it stands there would not appear to be any requirement on the I.T.A. to publish in its Annual Reports the companies' accounts filed with the Registrar of Companies. These accounts are available for public inspection. Most of the contractors engage in activities outside the television world, and their accounts, available for inspection at present, do not reveal much about their television activities.
Apart from the fact that the I.T.A., under paragraphs c, d and e of Clause 11(4), can find out what it wants to know for its own purposes about the contractors' financial transactions and affairs, the I.T.A. could arrange with the contractors, if necessary by provision in their contracts, that certain items of income and expenditure on television activities should be identifiable in the

accounts which the contractors file with the Registrar of Companies under the general requirements of the Companies Act, 1948. I hope that I have given enough information to show that this is something which, had Clause 7 ended up in a different fashion, might well have been needed, but in present circumstances we can see no reason why this requirement should be put into the Bill. Therefore, I would ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Chapman: Do I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman? Did he not say that the Authority could ask for the accounts to be published in some such form that these items would be readily identifiable? Did he say "could ask" or "will ask"? It makes quite a difference.

Mr. Mawby: I said that they could.

Mr. Chapman: But will they?

Mr. Mawby: Again, it is no good our trying to hamstring the I.T.A. in this matter. Obviously, the I.T.A. in renewing contracts will take advantage of its powers under the Bill. It will also be able to make changes in the contracts if it believes that it is essential that as the Authority it should know more about the financial affairs of a programme company than it knows now. It can already do this, because it will be renewing contracts next year, and we say that for this reason there is no need for the Amendment.

Mr. Chapman: I am rather disappointed. In Standing Committee we were examining Clause 7 as originally drafted and the alternative. Naturally, many of us wished to refer to the public accounts of the programme contractors in order to make judgments on these matters. Our problem became one that as legislators we were unable to find the facts on which to make the judgments. I had reports prepared by the Library of the House on a number of these companies in their television activities in recent years, as a background to our debates. It was reported to me—I confirmed it by looking it up myself—that in some cases the accounts did not sufficiently describe the television activities of the groups concerned for us to have reliable figures on which to work
The Assistant Postmaster-General is putting Parliament in a difficult position.


It is all very well to say that the Authority will be able to obtain the figures in order to make up its mind, but we as legislators have, on occasion, to make up our minds, on the granting of these public franchises indirectly through the Authority, about whether something proper and laudable which should be continued is being done or proposed under the terms of an Act of Parliament.
The Assistant Postmaster-General is not enabling Parliament to have the facts on which to make up its mind and form judgments. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider the matter again. I concede that the I.T.A. may be satisfied. It is very important that Members of Parliament also should be satisfied in these financial matters.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Willey: If I had any doubt before I heard the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply I have no doubt now that we ought to accept the Amendment. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, if we do some research, we shall satisfy ourselves that the Authority has power to obtain and make available the information which we seek. It is conceded that, if this information had been available for our discussions in Standing Committee, those discussions would have been much better informed and we should have had a much clearer view of the position of the programme companies.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that, when the Bill became an Act, the position would be so transformed that it would, in fact, be undesirable to place a burden such as this on the Authority because, presumably, it would exercise its powers and make the information available.
To be fair to the Authority, if we consider that information should be made available, we ought to impose this as a requirement. It is always better that Parliament should do this. It makes the position of the Authority plain. It causes no embarrassment, and everyone knows that the information should be made available. The important point is that it should be made available in standard form.
I still hope that the Government will reconsider the question and, if they are not willing to accept an Amendment pre-

cisely in these terms, incorporate an Amendment to this effect.

Mr. Bevins: Naturally, I am on exactly the same wave-length as my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and I agree with all he said. This is a difficult business, as we all appreciated in Committee. The Authority not only can but does secure quite a lot of information about the financial position of the various companies at present. Clearly, were this not so, it would not have been possible for me to produce a good deal of statistical information during our proceedings in Committee.
I must be frank with the House. One of the difficulties here is that the activities of the television contractors, generally speaking, are multifarious and diversified, and it would not be easy so to arrange matters that all the financial results of their television activities were segregated into one account. In a straightforward case, yes. But, in the case of a company which had television interests, theatre interests, and so on, and perhaps also—this presents a real difficulty—one or two subsidiaries producing programmes, I doubt that the Government would have the legal power to insist that the accounts asked for or required by the Authority include the accounts of the subsidiaries even though they were engaged in television. That is a very real difficulty.
I am quite willing to have a further look at this, and if I feel that it is practicable and desirable—

Mr. W. R. Williams: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he will have another look at this, because the Amendment says that the Authority should have
a statement of accounts in such form as the Postmaster General with the approval of the Treasury may require…
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at it from that point of view.

Mr. Bevins: I take the hon. Member's point.
I was pointing out that one of the difficulties is that it is doubtful whether we should have the legal power to include the finances of subsidiaries in those of the parent company. However, I will gladly look at the matter again. I


understand quite well why the House is interested, in this subject. If it is feasible to do what is asked, I will do it.

Mr. Willey: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, at the end to insert:
(f) if so required will incur expenditure on the production of programmes to be broadcast by the Authority amounting over a period defined by the Authority to a sum not less than a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor as the Authority, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, may determine.
I am sorry for many reasons that we have to deal with this Amendment at this moment with so much to do between now and the time that we shall be rising, because it is a very important Amendment from our point of view.
It is obvious, I think, from the decision of the House on Clause 7 that the majority of us believe that the financial provisions of Clause; 7 leave the programme companies, large and small, on a good, sound financial basis. I say that because a lot of information of a contrary character has been bandied about the House from time to time. We have heard that some of the big companies would fall into bankruptcy and that many of them would be destroyed. In view of the prophecies given to us by the Postmaster-General, I cannot accept that anything of the kind will happen. I feel sure that there will be no big queues in July, 1964, no big rush of new entrants, because of the redundancies and vacancies created by the departing big four companies.
On the other hand, we thought that there might be difficulties regarding some of the smaller or medium companies, and, in order to ensure that their position was safeguarded, we agreed to Amendments moved by the Postmaster-General which would provide the smaller and medium companies with many additional resources. I therefore think that I am fair in saying that the House accepts that the financial position of the companies, large and small, will be reasonably sound and that they will be provided with adequate resources in order that they may fully and efficiently carry out the duties and obligations to

the viewers imposed on them by the House.
In our view, there is no reason why companies should not maintain high standards of production or should not make better productions than they have done in the past. We believe that if they mean business and if they treat this as a national service and put their best into it there is ample room for expansion. In our opinion, they should be able to provide a high proportion of live programmes. It has been suggested that if we do not give them more money, allow them practically to print money, these people will take retaliatory measures and provide inferior programmes, programmes of less good quality than they have done in the past.
I have never believed that they would do this because, if they present inferior programmes and reduce the level of their approach, the only source of their revenue, advertisements, is bound to reflect the dissatisfaction of the public and the viewers with what they are doing. I do not believe that they will have a single excuse or argument for not providing a good proportion of high-standard, live programmes. There will not be any justification for these companies to resort to mechanical programmes as against live programmes. If they do so, it will be not for financial reasons, but on grounds of expediency.
In our opinion, there should be no contraction in the industry. We believe, on the other hand, that if it does its job properly, if it carries on in the right way and learns, above all, some of the lessons of the Pilkington Report, there is no reason why the industry should not expand considerably. Therefore, there should be no reduction in establishment. There should be no worsening of the conditions of workers in the industry, either in pay or in working conditions. As far as we can see, there is no reasonable excuse for redundancy in independent commercial television.
The House may ask why I am emphasising these points. The reason is that a number of people in the industry, including managers, producers, workers, electricians and other skilled people, have been transmitting to the House of Commons and to hon. Members the view that some of the things which I deny will take


place will, in fact, occur if the companies do not get the resources which they consider they should have.
A good deal has been said about the friends of the trade unions in the industry. I think that my record in regard to working for trade unions will stand the test in this House or elsewhere. I am certain that it compares fairly well with the record of those who have been fairly loud-mouthed here tonight but who are not now in their place when we are discussing a practical way in which to safeguard and reassure the workers in the industry.
I do not propose to say more about it than that. I take strong exception to what certain hon. Members have said about our attitude towards the workers in the industry. We have seriously considered every paper that was put to us. We tried to examine them all in the light of what we thought best, not only for the people in the industry, but for workers generally, and what was right and equitable for viewers as well as workers.
I understand the concern and anxiety of those who have written to us and I can understand the source of their concern. The reason simply is that they do not trust the programme companies. They are worried not so much about financies, but they cannot trust the companies to do the right thing with them.
I have received a recent letter from the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee which deals with this point. Referring to the programme companies, the letter states:
Had they in the past devoted more money to programmes and less to profits, the present position would not have arisen. But it has arisen and if must be controlled.
I entirely agree with those sentiments. It is fantastic to think that programme companies which are making profits of up to 55 per cent. have left the impression in the minds of people working for them that they are always in danger of redundancy and of lack of expansion and development in the industry. We agree, therefore, that in view of the doubt and concern which exists among the workers in the industry, we must do something by Statute to safeguard their position. Quite simply, the purpose of the Amendment is to try to do that and to correct the situation.

9.0 p.m.

We say in the Amendment that there should be a statutory duty upon the Authority to ensure that a high proportion of the available income is spent by companies upon programmes; in other words, that they face up to their primary purpose. The primary purpose of commercial television is to provide programmes, and good programmes. So we say in the Amendment that they must expend a high proportion of their income on good programmes and expansion of the industry. We are not asking that this should be done except on a keen analytical basis. We suggest that there must be surveys and discussions with the companies, that the Authority should consult the Postmaster-General, and when the consent of the Postmaster-General is obtained, agreement shall be reached with regard to the proportion of the revenue and the income to be expended on programmes. In other words, the important thing is the programme. The right hon. and learned Member for Wallasey referred to a statement I made the other day—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: For Wirral.

Mr. Williams: I meant the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I do not know whether I should apologise to Wirral or Wallasey. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I know both of them very well.

Mr. William Shepherd: Give a general apology.

Mr. Williams: Yes. I will—to the two "Ws".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to my statement and correctly interpreted what I said. I repeat it now. I, for one, do not want these people to work without reasonable profit. I have not suggested that in the Committee or on the Floor of the House. It is inherent in this, of course, that we shall be looking not only at what is reasonable to expend on programmes but also at what is reasonable profit for the companies. These two elements must be brought together, examined and surveyed by the Authority and re-examined by the Postmaster-General, whom it will be consulting, and after agreement it should be acting on the


lines of our Amendment. We think that this is the only way to safeguard the situation and make sure that some of the concern and anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House will not materialise, for the simple reason that it should not materialise, we believe, on the basis of the information made available to us. If it does materialise, it is because there is something wrong with the State of Denmark.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think that the suggestion made in the Amendment is practicable, although I naturally accept the idea behind the viewpoint of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams).
I intervene merely to say how distasteful I have found this purely artificially generated fear in the minds of the workers. It is one of the most despicable and unedifying examples of private enterprise that I have had the misfortune to witness. The programme companies know quite well that even with the new levy they will be perfectly able to provide employment for the existing employees. The finance will provide facilities even to improve existing programmes. There is no ground for fear. They have sown fear in the minds of the workers merely to try to grab extra profit at the expense of the taxpayer. I find this a disgusting and humiliating experience.
It is not true that one gets better programmes merely by spending more money. I have had enough experience of the film industry to know that lavish expenditure of money does not necessarily result in an acceptable product. What I want to see in this industry more than anything else is some artistic integrity. If the people at the top of this business would take more interest in it and devote more time to it and make those below them feel that they are really behind them, I believe we should get very much better programmes even at lower cost than at present.
One of the great difficulties about this business is that everyone is making so much money, not only in this field but in others, that there really is not the drive behind the business, not enough living television as a means of livelihood and fortune. I would like to see not necessarily the expenditure of more

money but much more artistic integrity, much more drive in the companies, much more belief in television. If we have these things, we can get much better programmes even at lower cost.

Mr. V. Yates: I find it rather difficult to accept the description of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) of the fears of the workers as artificially generated. He must be quite ignorant of the causes that have given rise to these fears. We are in a fool's paradise if we want to dismiss an argument put forward not by one organisation but a very large number.
I said earlier during proceedings on this Bill that there was a fear on the part of companies that they would not have the resources to continue. I was thinking of the big programmes, such as those undertaken by the major companies like A.T.V., and the possibilities of exporting programmes which are very costly. I mentioned a programme for the week ended 28th April. The cost to A.T.V. was £594,939. It is a big item to consider in a budget.
I am not saying that the fears of the workers are wholly justified, but we must examine them more deeply than the hon. Member has just done. He spoke of artistic integrity. In Committee upstairs I made reference to a memorandum sent to us by some of the artistes in television, the Screen Writers Guild. This is a very important body of people who write for television.
In the momerandum, the Guild said that it was opposed to the tax on gross advertising because, it said:
…in our view such a tax would induce the companies to maintain their profits at the expense of programme budgets which will inevitably be cut and will result in the purchase of the cheapest kind of low-quality programme.
I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to see that. The memorandum added:
A tax on advertising income would thus aggravate the situation to the extent that the quality of programmes would inevitably suffer.
I was a bit concerned about that. I raised the matter in Committee and wrote to the Screen Writers Guild. I asked what evidence it had for one of the arguments it put forward, that there was a tendency to restrict budgets. I had a very interesting reply and I would


like the House to consider it because, by this Amendment, we seek to safeguard people like this. The general secretary wrote to me on 6th May:
In the field of drama, which we believe to be the life-blood from which the quality of all other programmes stems, producers generally have to work within an overall budget imposed by the Companies. For example, if a producer is allocated £5,000 for a play of one hour duration, then he could not accept a play, however good, which might cost more to produce, and therefore many plays of merit would be rejected.
The letter says:
Also when a budget is imposed a writer must keep his play down to a certain number of characters, a certain number of sets, etc., etc., and tends therefore to write within the confines of a financial fence.
Furthermore, apart from one or two notable exceptions, there is a tendency for Companies to do everything in the cheapest way—this is business practice. The less money and time spent on rehearsals, studio time, fees, etc., provided the end product still attracts advertising revenue, the better the Companies like it.
As evidence of that, it goes on to say:
We have been negotiating for four years for minimum terms and conditions for writers. Throughout this period we have obtained certain advances, but even so, at a time when the companies were making large profits, our members were earning the following incomes…
I shall not go into a long list, but 57½ per cent, of the members of this organisation were getting up to only £1,000 a year, although some of them, of course, were getting much more.
The letter goes on:
I think you will agree if one accepts the evidence of the Pilkington Committee that standards are generally too low, there can be no doubt that the companies must be blamed for not ploughing back into programme budgets sufficient money to provide the best quality programmes…it is essential that positive inducements and safeguards are introduced, in order that writers, the men who start with a blank sheet of paper, can be freed from financial restrictions, to provide the finest drama in the world.
The Amendment is designed so that we can get the best programmes possible. If it is not practicable, I hope that at least the Postmaster-General will keep this clearly in mind, because it would be a tragedy if the standard of broadcasting were to be lowered for reasons like that. We could have such a safeguard from the words of the Amendment—

a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts of the programme contractor as the Authority, with the consent of the Postmaster-General, may determine".
That safeguard would help to give confidence not only to the writers but to those who produce the scenery, the carpenters, the painters and all the other artists who are concerned. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has not been here very long. It does not do him much credit to try to mimic an hon. Member who is trying to put forward a serious argument. He had enough Amendments in Committee which he withdrew without taking them to a Division. I hope that he will try to make an intelligent contribution tonight.
This is a matter in which hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite, have expressed great interest. We want to safeguard the position of the workers of the industry and we are entitled to ask that the Bill should contain a safeguard against losing the best which artistic talent can provide for this industry. For that reason I support the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. David James: I need not intervene for more than a minute or so, because of the tenor of my previous remarks. I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) said, but it strikes me that there is a fundamental difficulty in the drafting of this Amendment. It refers to
a sum not less than a sum being such a proportion of the advertising receipts…".
Does the hon. Gentleman mean the net advertising receipts, or the gross advertising receipts after levy? We first have to make sure that there is a cake, and then know how it is expended. I could not support the hon. Gentleman as long as the nature of the cake remained obscure.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have known that we were dealing with net receipts, because gross receipts have been eliminated by the Amendment introduced by his right hon. Friend.

Mr. James: We are geting net and gross muddled up. I mean the net


sum after the new levy, not the difference between gross and net advertising receipts.

Mr. Mawby: I think that everyone must be concerned, and certainly my right hon. Friend and I are, when we see, as we did the other day, a demonstration based on fear. This is a great industry in which there are people skilled in all sorts of crafts. For one reason or another they are afraid that they will lose their livelihood at some time in the future, and they came to this House because they wanted Parliament to do something about it.
We all understand and sympathise with those who are faced with this fear of the future, but we believe that this fear is needless. We are still of the opinion that all the Jeremiahs will be confounded. But even if this were not so, I believe that the Amendment would not solve the problem, and I say this for a number of reasons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, one does not necessarily get better programmes by spending more money. Some first-class programmes have been produced on a shoestring, while other extremely expensive programmes have been considered by a number of people to have been hardly worth making.
The important thing to remember is that the Government are determined that programme companies will not be prevented from producing good programmes. In fact, the free slice and the changes which we have made in it have been deliberately designed to ensure that the smaller companies in particular have this better opportunity of producing programmes and are not starved of funds.
The I.T.A. has a responsibility, in appointing contractors and running the system of independent television, to ensure that good programme standards are maintained. Secondly, it is in the Authority's interest, in its competition with the B.B.C., to see that good programmes are produced. This is an important point, because every programme company knows that a fall in programme standards automatically leads to a fall in the number of viewers; that a fall in the number of viewers means a lower rating; and that a lower rating means less advertising income. It is, therefore, obvious that programme companies will do everything they can to see that their

programmes are of a high standard and are capable of competing with the other programmes. In this respect, we shall not need this sort of Amendment.
The Amendment calls on the programme contractors to incur certain programme expenditure. It is not specified what percentage should be used. No programme company faced with this sort of thing would know that my right hon. Friend and the I.T.A. might not set a proportion 90 per cent, or 95 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James) pointed out, the Amendment does not refer to advertising receipts after the levy has been deducted. It merely refers to advertising receipts.
No company would be prepared to enter into a contract on these conditions when so much is unknown. It could make a great deal of difference to the companies in future, by laying down a requirement to spend a certain amount of money or a certain proportion of income. This is something which we hope all the companies would do—it is their life-blood. If they do not put on good programmes they will go out of business. But to write it in the Bill is unnecessary and would not help those we want to help, all those engaged in all aspects of television.

Mr. Willey: I agree with a great deal of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, but I disagree with his conclusion. This is objective judgment based on inadequate evidence, but I think commercial television programmes have improved since the Pilkington Report. I do not believe that as a result of the Bill the programmes will deteriorate. On the contrary, I think that they will improve further.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that the attitude some of the spokesmen of the programme companies have taken has been most unfortunate. Unfortunately, it will have repercussions in the television industry. I only hope that by sticking to the principles which we have in the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, the view that has been expressed during many of the representations which have been made to us will not be continued, but will be abandoned, and that there will be a real effort on both sides of the industry to make the Act work. I agree


with the hon. Gentleman that there is not an equation between money and good programmes. It is unfortunate if the view gets about that there is. That could do a great deal of harm to television, as it has done in the film industry.
Very strong representations have been made to us and we should do our best to allay misgivings. We have had a great deal of reference on both sides to the Radio and Television Safeguards Committee, which has kept us equipped during discussions from the very first, indeed before the Bill was introduced, by representations to the Pilkington Committee. It took the view that there should be an obligation on the programme companies to devote a certain proportion of income to their programmes.
I have also had repeated representations from producers of programmes. Perhaps this misgiving ought not to be so deep as it appears, but there is serious misgiving among the producers. I have had many representations of different forms on the way in which the companies might feel afraid to plough back more money into production.
We should try to make it clear that we do not intend the programmes to deteriorate as a result of the Act. I

accept at once that if one tries to devise a formula one immediately runs into difficulty. I accept at once that if the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it would not be a good thing if it ever had to be implemented, but it would be a good sanction to have behind the discussion. The Authority would be in a better position if it had this sanction when discussing the quality of programmes with particular companies.

For these reasons, I think that it is a worth-while Amendment. It would strengthen the position of the Authority and allay the genuine misgivings which have been expressed in our deliberations. As the Postmaster-General will not accept the Amendment, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Mr. Bevins: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but merely to endorse what my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has said. If the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends feel that we ought to take this to a Division, so be it.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 150.

Division No. 155.]
AYES
[9.26 p.m.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John


Bence, Cyril
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Collick, Percy
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Ross, William


Cronln, John
Lawson, George
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Donnelly, Desmond
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Duthie, Sir William
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, N.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Eric
MacDermot, Niall
Wade, Donald


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Weitzman, David


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crm'thn)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wilkins, W. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willey, Frederick


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.)
Manuel, Archie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mason, Roy
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, C. R.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Herbison, Mlss Margaret
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phllip(Derby,S.)



Hilton, A.V
O'Malley, B. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T,
Mr. Redhead and Mr. McCann.


Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.





NOES


Aitken, Sir William
Glyn, sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Allason, James
Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippanham)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Percival, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pitman, Sir James


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pott, Percivall


Bell, Ronald
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bingham, R. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Bishop, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Black, Sir Cyril
Hollingworth, John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Roots, William


Boyle, Rt. Hun. Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Braine, Bernard
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Sharples, Richard


Bromley-Davenport.Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Brooman-White, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Brown, Alan Tottenham)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd A Chiswick)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gary, Sir Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Chataway, Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cleaver, Leonard
Kershaw, Anthony
Talbot, John E.


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Teeling, Sir William


Costain, A. p.
Lewie, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Turner, Colin


Crawley, Aidan
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Critchley, Julian
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Vane, W. M, F.


Doughty, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


du Cann, Edward
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wall, Patrick


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Errington, Sir Eric
Marlowe, Anthony
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, stratton
Worsley, Marcus


Gammans, Lady
Montgomery, Fergus
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gardner, Edward
Neave, Airey



Gibson-Watt, David
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.

Clause 12.—(BREACH OF CONTRACT.)

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, at the end to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the power of the parties to agree upon any wider form of arbitration provision, every such contract shall be such as to secure that any dispute—

(a) whether an alleged breach of which the programme contractor has received written particulars is a breach of the contract for the purposes of the provisions included in the contract in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, or
(b) whether the written particulars were received from the Authority within one month from the time that the breach came to the notice of the Authority,

shall be determined by arbitration.
I do not think that I need detain the House for more than a moment or two. The Amendment seeks to implement a

promise I made in Standing Committee to introduce an arbitration provision into the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(SECOND TELEVISION SERVICE PROVIDED BY AUTHORITY.)

Mr. John Rodgers: I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, at the end to insert:
(2) Not later than 1st October 1965, the Postmaster-General shall grant to the Authority a licence authorising the Authority to provide a second television service in such areas as the Authority may decide.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is convenient to discuss with this the Amendment to the Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman).

Mr. Rodgers: Some of the signatories to the Amendment played a most insignificant part 10 years ago in introducing the first Television Bill, which attempted to break the monopoly of the B.B.C. Tonight we move an Amendment hoping that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will insert a date authorising the Authority to provide a second television service. In other words, we are trying to ensure that the monopoly of the commercial programme-producing companies under the I.T.A. is also broken.
When we were trying to break the B.B.C.'s monopoly, some hon. Members opposite tried to impugn our motives. They said that we are a pressure group advancing commercial interests. It is true to say—I ought to say it right away—that I am the deputy chairman of a company that buys £9 million to £10 million worth of television advertising a year on behalf of British advertisers, but I have never had a share and do not now own a share in a single TV company; nor, unlike some hon. Members, have I been invited to take part in any programmes.
Why did we take the stand 10 years ago, and why do I rise on behalf of a good many of my colleagues to take this stand on this issue tonight? Ten years ago we took the stand we did because we believed that television was such an important medium of mass communication that it could not be left in the hands of one group of people, however well-intentioned that group was.
I say right away that I have an immense admiration—I had it then; I have it now—forwhat the B.B.C. does. Indeed, I spent six years as a member of the B.B.C. General Advisory Council and I have a great admiration for all the people who work there, and in particular for the present Director-General. However, that did not prevent me from feeling that it should be shared and that it should not be left to one group of people. Equally we cannot leave commercial television in monopolistic hands.
It is interesting to reflect that 10 years ago in our first efforts to free television from paternal control, we had then the active support of many hon. Members who today make up the present Cabinet. We saw our fight then together as a first

step, but a first step only, in the battle for the freedom of the air.
I therefore ask myself—many other people must be asking themselves this question—why the Postmaster-General has introduced the Bill in its present form, with the apparent support of the Cabinet, and not named a date when he will definitely ensure that this commercial monopoly is broken. I have one great sympathy with my right hon. Friend as one who fought hard for the establishment of the I.T.A. There is no doubt that the present programme companies, presented with a semi-Government monopoly for television and an absolute monopoly regionally for the collection of advertising revenues, have, after a shaky start, made a lot of money.
Some people allege that they have made far too much money. Some people allege that they have even become arrogant in their attitude towards business. Some even assert that to have an I.T.A. licence is to have a licence to print money. But whose fault has this been? Who is responsible if licences to produce television programmes and collect advertising revenues has led to great profits being made? The fault must partly lie with us in this House for creating this monopoly or semi-monopoly position.
I believed at the time, and those in the House with me 10 years ago equally realised then, that this was, perhaps, inevitable. Such was the feeling then, for it was felt that one could not have more than one experiment to see whether commercial television would be palatable to the British people. I am not querying what was done 10 years ago. I am saying that it was inevitable. However, the continuation of it now is inexcusable.
I sympathise to some extent with the decision of the programme companies to solve the allocation of advertising time by adopting the easy course of rationing time by the purse. This method has had some drawbacks. First, it has meant that the small advertisers have, in the main, been kept off the air and, secondly, that the large advertisers have probably been overcharged. In defence of the companies, it must be said that the absence of competition in television has meant that there has been no reliable yardstick as to what should be the advertising rates on the air. They have had more or less to guess them.
There is no doubt that by adopting this course the companies have, on the whole, made huge profits. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Postmaster-General in his attempts to find methods to draw back some of these profits to the public. We had, first, the 11 per cent. T.V. tax as an attempt to deal with this monopoly position. But instead of touching the profits of the programme companies, the tax was passed straight back to the advertisers who, in turn, probably passed it back in some measure to the ultimate consumers of their products. So the T.V. tax failed in its purpose to deal with the monopoly profits being made by the programme companies. The absurdity of that tax was a reflection on the Treasury and the Post Office.
After weeks and months of discussion in Committee and elsewhere the Postmaster-General has now come up with a graduated tax on net advertising revenue. I think that he is right to have tried to find a method to get some of the money back to the public purse. We must now go ahead with this new tax, but I hope that it will be speedily ended. It is not a good method of taxation. In fact, I believe it to be a bad one. However, in the present circumstances it must continue. We must end that form of taxation as soon as we can and this leads me to the question of how to bring this new levy to an end.
I believe that there is only one answer that can be given to the whole problem facing television advertising today. The answer is to provide real competition. This would provide a solution to the problems posed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) earlier. If we had competition many of the fears he rightly expressed about people working in the industry would soon disappear.
When I say that we want a second channel and so break the monopoly position of the television companies, I do not mean, as the Sunday Express stated two or three weeks ago, that I am
…a leading champion of commercial television in the Commons "—
who
comes up with a demand that the T.V. tycoons should be given a second channel by the end of 1965.
That is the last thing I want to do. I do not want to give them any more

channels, but to present competition to the present television tycoons.
9.45 p.m.
My hon. Friends and I urge that a second independent channel should be introduced not later than October, 1965. The new channel should be given to companies different from those operating now. In this, I disagree with some of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. David James). Furthermore, I believe that it is not necessary for the I.T.A. to fix the same regional pattern as obtains with the programme companies today. That would solve some of the problems of the smaller companies. In addition, the second commercial channel could start piecemeal, at first covering only the major sections of the populace and extending gradually to the remainder of the country.
Why does my right hon. Friend not welcome this constructive, expansionist and conservative policy and, instead, appear to cling to his destructive, dangerous and reactionary policy of trying to control profits by a bad form of taxation? Competition is the only sane answer to the problem facing the independent television companies.
I have tried to probe my right hon. Friend's motives for not naming a date in the Bill so far, and I will now try to anticipate what may be one or two of his arguments in support of his line of benevolent promise that, in the end, in the coming by-and-by, there will be a second channel. My right hon. Friend will probably say that there is little evidence of public demand. He may quote from the famous Pilkington Report, but to my mind the judgments and strictures of the Pilkington Committee are no more reliable than the opinions of any other dozen citizens picked at random.
The Pilkington Report was not a report at all, but an editorial comment on what was considered good broadcasting. If one searches the Report for a definition of "good" one finds only subjective Left-wing views as to the use to which mass communication techniques should be put. Worse still, the whole Report is full of nonconformist dogma that depreciates entertainment for entertainment's sake. The Report represents a unique opportunity lost. It would have done a lot of good to have had a


probing search into television—B.B.C. and commercial—but that opportunity was missed. Instead of spending money on real research, finding out what people liked or did not like, and what their reactions were likely to be if they were offered this or that, all we had were the subjective opinions of people put out as a so-called Report. The Committee fell into the error of reiterating opinions un-backed by any facts or findings.
The Government, therefore, cannot hide tonight behind the Pilkington Committee's view that no second independent channel can be provided until the I.T.A. strengthens its rules, the existing independent television companies put their house in order, and the public demonstrate a need for this second channel. When I was a boy, I was told, "If you ask a silly question you get a silly answer." If we appoint a Committee like the Pilkington Committee, we get a fatuous Report like the Pilkington Report. It was a very poor thing. How such a Report as that could be introduced, which ignored the basic fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One does not use a stopwatch, but there must be some limit. We cannot conceivably debate the whole Pilkington Report and its constituents on this Amendment. In so far as it relates to the proposal in the Amendment it is, of course, in order, but the hon. Member has already devoted more than two minutes to the Report.

Mr. Rodgers: It is important, Mr. Speaker, because these are the people who, through their Report, have stopped the provision of a second I.T.A. commercial channel for the moment, ignoring altogether in their remarks the fact that three out of four people still prefer the I.T.A. programmes to those of the B.B.C.—and that is something that cannot be laughed off.
The Government's second reason, probably, for disfavouring a second I.T.V. channel, although there are no technical reasons against it, is its alleged doubtful economic viability. At present, £70 million a year are spent on television advertising. Immediately after the imposition of the 11 per cent. tax there was a slight pause in the upward march of advertising and profits. Today, there are clear signs that the main contractors are

heavily booked for the autumn and "time" is becoming ever more difficult to obtain. An extension of broadcasting hours will provide some alleviation but a second channel is the only real solution.
Let the B.B.C. get in first. I am delighted that the B.B.C. is having a second channel. I am only worried that I.T.V. is not. It should be recognised that the programme companies, with one notable exception, do not want competition. I do not speak on their behalf. The companies have been enjoying their present monopoly, and who can blame them when one looks at the facts and figures? It should be remembered however that the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, speaking for the whole body of the industry, has long advocated the provision of another channel. I believe that it is in the interests of British business that a second I.T.V. channel should be provided as soon as possible. If the present share of total advertising is maintained, the I.S.B.A. believes that revenue would increase by 1965 on television to £95 million.
As we all know, commercial television has demonstrated itself as a vastly superior medium in selling a large range of consumer goods. Manufacturers simply cannot afford to stay out of I.T.V., yet the introduction of a second B.B.C. channel, without a second I.T.V. channel, may make the medium less efficient economically, yet the present programme contractors in this situation are bound to see their profits increased. Given competition, however, that situation could change.
A second channel would possibly increase the total volume of advertising on television as a whole. Many products are at present precluded from advertising. Unless severe geographical or seasonal limitations are imposed it is almost impossible to advertise all the year round effectively on television with an advertising appropriation of less than £175,000. Competition from contractors on a second channel at lower rates than those existing today would attract a greater number of products and advertisers. Additionally, television might be capable of selling itself as a minority or selective medium. Up to date it has sold itself exclusively as a mass medium. If stations could offer lower rates during


certain programmes and hours, advertisers of specialist products would use the medium and this would bring television advertising entirely new business. Programme contractors would be encouraged to put on special interest programmes without the inhibition of always trying to get a higher rating or the lowest common denominator of appeal.
Television advertising is likely to increase. The view in informed circles is that there is enough advertising now to support two commercial channels. Moreover, present studio capacity throughout the I.T.V. network far exceeds the modest demands made on it today. This means that a second channel could be provided without involving expensive capital investment on studios and technical equipment, at least at the outset. With a more rational division of broadcast areas it could be argued that there are already enough advertisers to supply a second service. I want to see the introduction of new blood to compete with the existing contractors and I believe that that will be forthcoming.
There are other compelling reasons for urging upon my right hon. Friend to name the date when a second I.T.V. channel can come into operation. There is already grave unemployment in the acting profession. The profession has felt the pinch already as a result of economies which some of the programme companies have been panicked into putting into operation. Already, parts have been cut out so that plays have only five or six characters. No wonder the British Actors Equity Association is worried and has pointed out that only 40 per cent. of its members are fully employed. That is one reason why we need a second channel.
There is another even more urgent reason. In relation to the growth of V.H.F. 625-line sets, the best chance that the B.B.C. has of obtaining a quick penetration would be by an energetic conversion campaign by the T.V. rental companies, which at present provide about 70 per cent. of the 12½ million multi-channel receivers in use. I am sure they, as businessmen, must know that this could be a much better proposition and immensely more attractive if they could add the promise of a second I.T.V. channel instead of the present limited appeal of only the second B.B.C. channel.
This must be of tremendous importance also to television manufacturers. The growth of V.H.F. broadcasting will be slow enough. I assure the House of this. It will necessitate 100 transmitters and about 300 satellite boosters. All the existing camera and recording equipment would have to be replaced since it is impossible to convert 405-line pictures to 625 lines, whereas it is quite possible to do the reverse.
To my mind, it is inconceivable that this Government, or any Government, could take the line that there are enough book publishers today and that no new-comers should be allowed into the book publishing business. It is inconceivable that they would say that we have enough newspapers today and that we do not want any more. Indeed, a howl goes up from the House every time a newspaper closes down.
Why, then—I am really puzzled—do the Government play-act like Canute on this issue and delay decisions about a second independent network which would give a fillip to the set manufacturers and which would encourage technicians and actors who would benefit in their wages and conditions by competition for their services? The Government are proud to say that Tory freedom works. I ask them to be true to their traditions and to name the date in the Bill by which the second independent channel will come into existence.
If October, 1965, is not acceptable to my right hon. Friend, will he name another date not too far distant from that? If he does not wish actually to put the date in the Bill, will he see that it is left to the Authority to name the date when the second commercial service will start? Let him make concession to this great demand to free commercial television from its monopoly position in very much the same way as we made immense efforts 10 years ago to free the B.B.C. from its monopoly position.

Mr. Mason: The simple answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) is that no Government, irrespective of its political colour, could at this stage say when a second independent television channel can be introduced.

Mr. Hirst: Why not?

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will explain in detail why not.
I thought it was indicative of the activities of a few hon. Members opposite that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, in other words, that the same mob were now acting as were, in 1953, responsible for the introduction of commercial television. It is typical that an advertiser should move this Amendment. At least, he is honest. If there is anybody to gain by it more than anyone else, it is the advertisers.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I am not an advertiser. I spend no money or buy no advertising on my own behalf. I get my commission whatever medium I use, whether television, Press or anything else.

Mr. Mason: The point is made. The hon. Gentleman gets it. He would benefit, would he not, if a second channel were introduced?

Mr. Hirst: No.

Mr. Mason: This really is a tactical manœuvre. The small minority of hon. Members on the Conservative benches in the Committee, seven in all, tested the Postmaster-General twice on other matters, put down a series of Amendments on this particular question and, on the last day of the Committee, withdrew them. They regrouped their forces, brought in a little fresh artillery, and, along with the garrulous camp of A.T.V., they are now ready to make a fresh assault on the Postmaster-General.

Mr. David James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had this continually for the last couple of months. AH that has ever been said from this side of the House is that the labourer is worthy of his hire, irrespective of the position he occupies within the industry. Do not criticisms of this point of view come ill from someone who so consistently urges that Members of Parliament are worthy of their hire as well?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. If I encounter some suggestion of undivulged motives, then we shall get into the realms of order, but I think that at present the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) and his friends have only been called "guns" or "big guns".

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Mason: I never realised that the skin of Tory politicians was so thin.
For my part, I hope that the Postmaster-General will give no promise other than the promises which he has given in the two White Papers which have been issued, particularly in relation to the post-Pilkington Reports. In paragraph 81 of Cmnd. 1770, the Postmaster-General said that
The Government considers that there will be scope at a later stage for a second I.T.A. programme.
In Cmnd. 1893 it was said:
While the Government does not propose to authorise a second independent television programme in the near future, it does not dismiss the possibility of doing so later.
My view is that that is as far as any Government can go at this stage in making any promise on the future of another independent television channel. Indeed, if the Postmaster-General indicates that his opinion has changed from what is said in those two statements, it shows that the pressure which has been applied in the past seven weeks has made him bend.
I should regret to hear any promise whatsoever from the Postmaster-General that there will be a second channel at some date in the near future. First, as he has rightly said—and the hon. Member for Sevenoaks chastised him on this point—there is no evidence of public demand. The advertisers, of course, want it. It would break the monopoly of the first independent television service and consequently would force down the advertisement rates. But it is not possible for this House to make a decision on the future of another independent television channel solely because of such selfish motives. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not give way on that score.
The question which has been raised many times before and by some of the


companies, including some of the big four, is whether, if there were another independent television channel, there would be sufficient advertisement revenue to sustain two independent television channels. A.T.V., of course, has been demanding this, but I understand that there is a conflict among the independent television companies and that most of them are against its introduction.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Does the hon. Member realise that the logic of his argument is that he is making a most impassioned defence of vested interests in this matter?

Mr. Mason: I am always passionate in my speeches if I feel strongly about a matter. I am not nastily against I.T.A. Independent television has made television as a whole much brighter than it was before its introduction. I am not deploying an argument on behalf of I.T.A. or the big four or all the programme companies. I am deploying an argument solely on the ground that it is not opportune at the moment to introduce a second commercial channel.

Mr. Maddan: Why not?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member should wait. First, I say that the advertisers want it.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is getting late.

Mr. Mason: I am not aware of any time limit on this debate. First, the advertisers want it to break down the advertising monopoly. Secondly, there is no public demand. Thirdly, it is doubtful in some of the minds of television companies that there would be sufficient advertisement revenue to keep a second channel going.
There are many other developments, too. A lot of them are costly and are sucking up much of the manpower and the apparatus and equipment in getting busy within the radio and television industry. First, there is the change-over from 405 to 625 lines and the change-over from V.H.F. to U.H.F. Additional equipment is required for transmitting stations, masts, and so on. These involve additional cost, both to the B.B.C. and to I.T.A.
The B.B.C. has been given the go-ahead for experimental colour television. The B.B.C. has been chastised by some people for dragging its feet, but this is a big decision and it must be compatible with Europe and, possibly, international television. It is a big decision to make and much research and development is going on into it.
There is the problem of the manufacturers and the development of sets with different linage, the switch-over from V.H.F. to U.H.F. and the receivers which may have to receive monochrome and colour as well. We are on the eve of another great development, as the Postmaster-General and anybody who takes an interest in the subject is fully aware. There is the chance now of pay-T.V. development in certain of the densely-populated areas. As far as I can see, there is no public demand for this either, but the Postmaster-General is giving the go-ahead. Already, ten companies are making claims upon him for licences. They must, in the main, be different companies from those which make up independent television. Consequently, far more companies, people, interests, equipment, and so on, are being sucked up into these various developments.
Then there is the problem of the switch-over from Bands 1 and 3 to Bands 4 and 5. I understand that there is a vacant channel. This may be why it is opportune for hon. Members opposite to press the Postmaster-General for this vacant channel. The House could be told that I.T.A.—

Captain L. P. S. Orr: What vacant channel does the hon. Member mean?

Mr. Mason: I understand that before the great engineering switch-over takes place there is a vacant channel and that this may be the opportune moment for hon. Members opposite, who understand the vacancies of channels on Bands 1 and 3, to make an approach. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks, who moved the Amendment, appears to be agreeing with me, so I am obviously right about that.
The House should be warned that, since the Pilkington Report, independent television is now on test. Indeed, the Postmaster-General has recognised this, since a long code of conduct is being put into the Bill which eventually will be


imposed upon independent television operations. We hope, first, therefore, that there will be an improvement in independent television standards generally before a second channel can be considered.
There are other greater needs. No doubt, the Postmaster-General has been subject to pressure by many educational bodies and institutions that there should be next, not a commercial channel, but an educational or, as I prefer to call it, an instructional channel. No doubt, he has been pressed on that score, too. There is greater public demand for an educational channel than for a second commercial channel.
Other pressures are being exerted for use of the air and the screen or the resources which will be sucked up into these operations. The B.B.C. would like to introduce local broadcasting. There is a demand by the commercial lobby for commercial sound broadcasting. All these things cannot take place at the same time. There must be an orderly progression and there seems to be sufficient in the pipeline without introducing a second independent channel.
In my opinion, we canot have a further whirlpool of activity in this direction. We should be bowing down to the selfishness of the advertisers. Many reserves of technical skill and manpower required for other developments would be sucked into it, and we could ill afford it. Neither do I wish to see a higgledy-piggledy growth of broadcasting and television. That could easily happen. The growth must be orderly and controlled. I think that sufficient has been authorised at the moment. [Hon. Members: "Why"?] Let us await the developments which are in the pipeline, and then let us assess our supply position, and then, in accordance with public demand, the Postmaster-General, if he wishes, can take opinion and advice.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not want to be unduly polemical, but the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has on one or two previous occasions introduced a note of controversy, and I have never heard him make such a splendid reactionary speech as he has just done. I shall use his phrases, such as "orderly progression"—

Mr. Mason: Planning.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: —and things of that sort—that we have to be careful about things in the pipeline, and so on. He trotted them all out.
I think that we come back to matters of basic principle. I believe that my minority Report to the Beveridge Report played a part in this matter. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) say that he now recognises that independent television is an integral part of the system.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I sincerely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also find some virtue in what I may say later in connection with what he is talking about now.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is taking a great deal on trust. I see virtue in what I have already heard.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Barnsley say that he thought that the effect of independent television was very much to improve the B.B.C. I think that that is so. I quite see that there are difficulties about the matter. I know that my right hon. Friend has given a good deal of anxious thought to it. But one comes back to first principles.
I feel as strongly about this as I did in 1950, when we considered the B.B.C. monopoly. This medium of information, education and entertainment is so powerful that there should be the maximum diversity. On page 17, the Pilkington Report states:
…what the public wants and what it has the right; to get is the freedom to choose from the widest possible range of programme matter. Anything less than that is deprivation".
That is exactly how I feel. The present position, where there is only one provider of advertising time on any one channel in any one area at any one time, is not what I had in mind when earlier I suggested a second service. This is a situation which should be changed as quickly as possible. To be absolutely frank, I want as many channels as possible as quickly as possible.
I do not care about the financial advantage of particular companies. Anyway, three of the big ones are against the suggestion at the present time. There is nothing particularly


wrong about making a profit. In spite of that, I still believe that we should not have regard to the financial advantage of a particular company, but should act upon the principle that we must see that the power of a single channel is diminished. That is one of the great dangers about this medium which I have always felt throughout—that a single channel or a single programme can have too much power.
It is as if we had only a single news paper. I agree with what one of my hon. Friends said, that it is a tragedy when a newspaper goes out of circulation. I deeply regretted the fact that the News Chronicle went out of circulation, though it never said anything polite about me. But it was a bad thing for that to happen. I believe that we should have as many different expressions of opinion as possible.
That is the general argument. There are some very good specific arguments. I think that it will increase the time available to advertisers. It will also bring down advertising prices. That will be a benefit. It will also provide much more scope for programme makers, writers, producers, actors and equipment makers, and give us a broader base for exports.
10.15 p.m.
This is also something which bears a little on what the hon. Member for Barnsley said. I think that the development of a B.B.C. second channel will go ahead quicker the quicker we push on with the development of a second commercial channel. It will help to get the new 625-line sets going, as the hon. Gentleman said.
I support the Amendment. I would have preferred the third channel to have been a commercial channel, because that would have been of considerable benefit to the taxpayer. But I fell in with the views of my colleagues, as my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General knows, on condition that a fourth channel for commercial television should be made available as soon as practicable. That is what I am asking for now—as soon as practicable.
One argument against the proposal for a second commercial channel is that it would not pay. I do not think that that is a matter for Government deci-

sion. It is one for commercial decision by those who wish to enter the business. It is argued that it would be premature. But the Amendment is only a permission. It would not be mandatory. It would give a licence to the Authority to introduce this system in such areas as it thought fit. That would give it complete discretion.
Perhaps I am wrong to put this forward, but I believe that the third argument against this proposal is that put forward by the still considerable section of opinion which believes that there should not be a second commercial channel at all. It does not want any extension of commercial broadcasting. I do not think my right hon. Friend believes that, but I think that there are some about—I will not be more specific—who really want to smash independent television, who have never accepted it, as the hon. Member for Openshaw has accepted it, and who want to undermine it and eventually do away with it.
It is because I sincerely believe that to be the case that I consider that it is necessary to have this Amendment. I have kept reasonably silent about quite a lot of this Bill with which, to put it mildly, I am not in agreement. I agree with a lot of what has been said about Clause 7. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this Amendment favourably.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): In calling the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) to speak, I make it clear that I am not calling him to move at this stage his Amendment to the Amendment, in line 1, to leave out "1965"and to insert "1967". He will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to move it if he so desires.

Mr. Chapman: I shall not eventually move this Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that we can take care of it in the general debate and so save time as well.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said that he would not be polemical. I was glad of that. We have had so much polemics on this Bill that perhaps we can discuss it now in a calmer atmosphere. I am one who was originally a critic of commercial television, but who has now come to accept it, and I take up a


position somewhere between my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I want a second channel for commercial television. I would be quite happy to see
it come along. I would not be as indefinite in postponing it as my hon. Friend would be, and I do not want it in the same terms as the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants it, in the context of as many channels as possible. I want to say how difficult it is for hon. Members to restrain themselves on this issue. The things which the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) said about the Pilkington Committee were a disgrace. I do not believe that he has ever read the Report.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Certainly I have.

Mr. Chapman: If the hon. Member has read it, I am glad to hear him say so, but he cannot possibly have read all the paragraphs in it which advocate a second channel for commercial television.
The hon. Member devoted a large part of his argument to saying that one of the reasons why the Government were resisting his demands was that they have fallen for the Pilkington Report. That is not true. The hon. Member cannot even have read it. The paragraphs about the future of television make it absolutely clear that the Pilkington Committee wanted more channels, first another channel for the B.B.C. and then other channels for the I.T.A. in a few years' time. For the hon. Member to argue like that shows that he cannot even have read the crucial paragraphs of the Report on this matter and it is a disgrace that he should castigate a report which he has not even read. That sort of thing is an abuse of our procedure.
One of the reasons why we cannot be so precipitate as to put the date of 1965 in the Bill is that it is impossible for the Government to commit a future Government. It is as simple as that. These things are not done in our legislation. No Government would put themselves into such a stupid position as to insist that a future Government, whatever their political complexion, must do something on a given date. Yet that is precisely

what the Amendment proposes. Even if they did, it would be meaningless, because any future Government could simply say that it would repeal the provision immediately and would refuse to be bound by the decision of a previous Government to fetter their activities. We never do these things in the House of Commons and there is no valid precedent for an Amendment on these lines.
There is a second and even more important reason. I am not sure that hon. Members opposite appreciate what they have put in their own Amendment. It says that not later than 1st October, 1965, the Postmaster-General "shall" grant the Authority a licence for a second channel. That means that in 1965, come what may, comefair wind or foul, come economic crisis or boom, come war or peace, whatever the circumstances may be, the Government of die day shall grant a licence to the Independent Television Authority. That is not permissive. It might be permissive for the I.T.A. to open a second channel when it has the licence, but it would not be permissive for the Postmaster-General. He would have no right to say that the national resources should not be used for the purpose.
This is a stupid provision to attempt to write into a Bill in this modern age. It is not permissive in any valid sense, because the I.T.A. could cock a snook at the Government of the day and say, "We do not care whether there is an economic crisis. We have been given a licence and we shall start a second channel and spend all the millions of pounds on the capital equipment involved and you can go to blazes, because it is in the Act and we will do it whatever you may say".

Mr. Gilbert Longden: Why do the arguments not apply equally to 1967? The hon. Gentleman has put down an Amendment to make it 1967.

Mr. Chapman: I have already said that I would not move that Amendment. I put it down to focus attention on the remarks I am about to make.
The question is not only whether the Amendment is improper and stupid and foreign to our procedure, but whether the year 1965 could possibly be appropriate in all the circumstances. We have to be very careful about looking at the


future. The B.B.C. second channel will begin to reach the London area in 1964, but it will not be until 1965, and more probably 1966, that it will reach the majority of the rest of the country.
In my view it is wrong to start giving another licence to the I.T.A. until we have had the sort of full coverage by the B.B.C.'s second channel which will enable us to earn all the lessons involved. There are all sorts of lessons to be learned, and we must see how public opinon reacts to the new kind of programme that will be B.B.C. II. Why rush in with a new type of programme which will be stultified at birth if it has to go on on the basis of the present-day programme? Why not look further ahead? This medium is developing rapidly. B.B.C. II will be entirely different from B.B.C. I, just as I hope I.T.A. II will be different from I.T.A. I.
I am with the right hon. Gentleman on this. I want to see the maximum variety in these matters, but we will get variety only if we allow these mediums to use their channels in new experimental ways and learn from each other as the years go by. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, if I had to give a date, the earliest would be 1967. Not till then shall we begin to learn all the lessons of B.B.C. II.
As I said, B.B.C. II will be very different from B.B.C. I, and we are now having the plans gradually unfolded. Mr. Kenneth Adam, head of B.B.C. Television, said recently:
It has been suggested, and the sectional lobbies inside and outside Parliament will press this falsehood, for that is what it is, that we are out, or shall be when we have a second channel, to annihilate the commercial channel, that we shall to mount programmes as to present the viewer with an inevitable desire to watch the B.B.C. only. This is nonsense, it is utter, stupid nonsense. Speaking as Director of B.B.C. Television, I can tell you that we are less and less concerned with commercial competition. We are even paying less "—
I am sure he should have said "beginning to pay"—
attention to the counting of heads. We shall give up whole evenings to special projects. If, as happened when we did this with the production of Carmen before Christmas, we get an audience as large as 8¾ million, so much the better. But I declare here and now that we shall seek the ratings, in the sense of running after them, less and less. And I mean from now on; I do not mean from April, 1964. So that I can say, without any qualifications, that we have no desire to attempt to destroy by our programme

planning the legitimate audience that commercial television can hope to achieve. If, as we hope, by producing better programmes we get better audiences, that will be fine. That is obviously what we want. But there is not, and never will be, any deliberate effort or intention on the part of the B.B.C. Television Service to destroy I.T.V.".
He goes on to say that this will be a new type of evening entertainment. Some evenings will be given over to boxing, and others to opera. Efforts will be made to look after minority interests, and to provide half an evening's entertainment for them. I am not saying that this is good or bad. This is a new step forward in television technique. Would not it be better if the second channel learnt from the experience of the others instead of, as hon. Gentlemen seemed to suggest, providing another I.T.A. 1963 version? That is what will happen if we rush into this.
I want a maximum period consistent with limiting the number of channels that we can have to provide national coverage. This will mean perhaps half a dozen in the end, and I want to ensure that we make the best use of the channels. I therefore say to hon. Gentlemen that it is stupid to try to jump the gun. If we must have a date, it should be in the late 'sixties rather than in 1965.
The other point about the danger of an early date is that I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen realise the technical problems involved?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman exclude the possibility of the third and fourth channels learning together? If they developed together, would not they learn quicker?

Mr. Chapman: That may be true. It would be impossible to do that in one quick stage when B.B.C. II comes in in 1964, because the B.B.C. has had to take two or three years in preparing this. If I.T.A. started in 1965 it would be at least five years behind the B.B.C. which had to startin 1960, if not earlier, preparing B.B.C. II. They would not be learning together in that sense. All I am saying is that, given this gap, let us phase this plan properly. I want a second channel, but I do not want it to be another I.T.A. 1963 version as a result of rushing it unnecessarily.
I was about to say something about the technical problems. I do not know


whether hon. Members opposite realise that the capital cost of the B.B.C. second channel is £40 million minimum for a start. It will involve about 250 new transmitters and not, as an hon. Member opposite said, 100 small power boosters, but 250. This is a formidable technical problem from which we have to learn a great deal. To say that suddenly, without having paused to realise what is involved technically, we have got to rush ahead with a partial duplication—I do not say a complete duplication, because there will be a joint use of facilities to some extent—of a 1963 version is quite stupid in terms of the long-run interest of television in this country.
I think I have spoken long enough on this issue. I say to hon. Members: be patient. I think that having won the battle—and I give it to them—of the introduction of commercial television, having now got what is an agreed Bill between the two sides of the House—

Captain Orr: Captain Orr indicated dissent.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but he is only a small lobby on the opposite side of the House. In the main, we have an agreed Bill, and I ask hon. Members to realise that the best interests of television in this country are served by proceeding steadily and in agreement rather than unduly quickly.

Sir W. Wakefield: The more I have listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House the more I have become convinced that the best way to solve this difficult problem would be to have a third channel shared by the B.B.C. and commercial television.
The Government suggest that the third channel should be given exclusively to the B.B.C. As has already been said this evening, reference is made in the White Paper to a fourth channel for use at some future date by commercial television. I do not want to repeat the points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has already made, but it seems to me that many of the objections that he raised would be overcome if this suggestion of sharing this third channel between the B.B.C. and commercial television were adopted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) brought forth some powerful arguments for the fairly quick introduction of another channel for commercial television. It seems to me that if this third channel were shared as I have suggested, it ought to satisfy some of the points raised by him and other of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Northfield made some valuable remarks on the need for experimenting and said that valuable lessons would be learned from the B.B.C. using the second channel—

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Sir W. Wakefield: If my hon. Friend will permit me to finish what I am saying, I will then give way. As I was saying, the hon. Member for North-field made some pertinent observations and I would have thought that they supported the proposal that I am making, namely, that if the third channel were shared by commercial television and the B.B.C, both would be able to experiment and develop.
10.30 p.m.
The money obtained from advertising would pay for the majority if not all of this programme, and that, again, would remove a great worry which I see facing us all, for the B.B.C. has indicated that the introduction of this second programme will be very costly. It has been suggested that the licence fee will have to

be put up to £6. This suggestion of mine would overcome this difficulty about putting up the licence fee, since much of the programme, if it were shared with commercial television, could be paid for out of advertising revenue. Thus one great headache would be removed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend tell the House which companies would do this sharing? Would they be existing companies merely having another go and getting more advertising revenue, or does he envisage new companies coming in?

Sir W. Wakefield: That would be entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. All I am suggesting is that here is an opportunity to have commercial broadcasting side by side with the B.B.C. which, instead of having to provide all the equipment and all the finance for this programme, would have to provide a part only. Now that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is in his place again, I would repeat what I have said before, that the very real objections which he raised would be overcome if this suggestion were adopted. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, as it is late and others want to make their contributions, but I ask hon. Members to consider that this sharing would be a very happy compromise and would get us out of some of our difficulties.

Mr. Willey: I intervene only because I see that the Postmaster-General is anxious to intervene and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) for raising this matter though I hope he will not press his Amendment. I will say in a few words why.
In their White Paper the Government say:
The Government still feels, however, that a second commercial programme may prove to be desirable in order to allow full scope to independent television to offer more selection to viewers and to experiment.
This is a view I share. Why should we not, therefore, accept the hon. Member's Amendment? The Government also say:
The Government is not at present satisfied that in such a situation sufficient advertising revenue would be forthcoming adequately to sustain two commercial programmes.


I put that point to the hon. Gentleman because he was not on the Standing Committee. I think everyone who was would take the view that it would be unfair in present circumstances to take any decision about the second programme—not in principle, but about the date. The gravest apprehension was expressed by hon. Members in pressing their view about profits and opposing the action the Government have taken. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was alone in expressing his view, and I accept that. Otherwise, those who opposed the action of the Government did so because they said this would be gravely prejudicial to the companies. In those circumstances, we have to give the companies some security.
I am not defining a date but leave that to the Authority. It will readily appreciate the effect of the levy, if it has any marked effect on the programme companies. We are not in a position to decide this, but the Authority will be. This is a matter which should properly be left to the Authority. Those of us who took part in the Standing Committee must have been impressed that it would be wrong for us to give a decision giving a right to establish a second channel. The Government have expressed the general view and we must leave it to the Authority to decide when it might be appropriate to take action.

Captain Orr: Would the hon. Member be happy to see that provision written into the Bill; that it should be left to the Authority?

Mr. Willey: I am willing to leave it to the Authority, subject to a further condition which I shall mention. This Amendment does not do that. It makes nonsense of the debate if we say the Amendment does that. The Amendment indicates a time-table; that is why it is unsuitable. When I am asked why I would not leave the matter entirely to the Authority, I make a reservation which I am sure the Government Front Bench would make. This must be considered in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the time.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has now left the Chamber. I make no complaint about that, but if a decision had been

called for a couple of years ago the Government would not have welcomed it then because of the economic difficulties. We cannot legislate in advance for circumstances a year or two ahead. We accept the intention expressed in the White Paper to leave it to the Authority subject to the circumstances of the time. I say this personally because I am not unattracted by the proposal. The question of a second channel is particularly relevant to something to which considerable attention was paid in Committee. That is networking. Networking would be more effective if the companies knew that all the time they had to produce two programmes. That would have a marked effect on networking.
We have said time after time that what is needed is to give the Authority more power, status and discretion. We curb that by saying that we cannot legislate absolutely in advance on this matter but have to consider it in the light of circumstances then obtaining. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that we have to wait for the B.B.C. to have a pilot run in order to see how this will work. One might as well say that we should have two pilot schemes and carry on by mutual experience. One must bear in mind the technical side of this matter, about which I am ill informed. I cannot—but that is no reason why the House should not—take a decision, but if the House is not better equipped than I am on the technical side, hon. Members would be ill advised to take a dogmatic view on the subject.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: The House has enjoyed a good tempered and a temperate debate so far. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) for his remarks at the beginning of his speech. In principle I agree entirely both with him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that in broadcasting no Government has any right artificially to deprive the public of services when the technical frequencies are available. I have always held that view and that, in principle, is still my view.
I wholly agree that the Government and the Authority should, in the future,


do all we can—and certainly more than we have done in the past—to promote genuine competition in commercial television. Perhaps the most significant and interesting thing that has emerged from the debate is the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have voiced their support, at least in principle, for the idea of a second commercial channel. It is, I think, the first occasion since commercial television was first debated in the House that we have reached the stage when hon. Members are separated not on matters of principle but only on matters of detail.
The purpose of the Amendment is to write into the Bill a requirement that not later than October, 1965, the Postmaster-General shall issue a licence for a second service for such areas as the Authority shall decide. This proposal contains two elements. Firstly, it suggests that the fourth programme should be allocated to independent television, and it goes on, secondly, to indicate when the fourth programme should actually start. These are in themselves separate propositions and they involve separate considerations.
The first question is this. Should I.T.V. have a second programme at all? I will not weary the House at this late hour by repeating what was said in the two Government White Papers, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he replied to the debate on Second Reading of this Bill, expressed his personal hope that the time would not be far away when this second programme could be authorised. In Committee I, too, made it clear that I shared that hope. No hon. Member can suggest, therefore, that the Government have been opposed in principle to a second programme. The question, of course, is why have we not given it the green light.
Hon. Members will know that for technical reasons the maximum number of programmes we can have in this country is six; two in the V.H.F. bands and four in Bands 4 and 5. Two of these are already in use. Two more will be needed for the change from 405 to 625 lines by duplicating the existing services in U.H.F. One will be needed for the second B.B.C. programme, and this leaves one free channel for at least about ten years while the change to 625 lines in being made.
For this single remaining channel there are a number of claimants—let us be honest about this. First—and foremost—there are the claims of independent television. There are also the advocates of a full-time educational programme and a pay-television programme. The Government are not dismissing these claims out of hand, but I feel—and this is the view of the Government—that the immediate future for pay-television will be over wired circuits, and I believe that experiments will very soon be under way.
I am sure that a good deal more can be done within the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to build up and develop the educational service within the existing structure. The more we can do here, and the more quickly and the more imaginatively it can be done, the better for us all. It is perfectly true—and I concede this to my hon. Friends—that the bringing into use of a second commercial programme would help to make room for more educational and instructional programmes.
I therefore come to a declaration of intention. It is the Government's intention to authorise the introduction of a second independent television programme as soon as the Government are satisfied that conditions are such that it can be made a success. When a second I.T.V. programme comes, it must be a success, not merely for those who run the service but, which is more important, for those who watch the service. The Government would therefore hope to issue a licence for I.T.A.2—if I may so describe it—during 1965 unless, and this is unlikely, it seems that the financial or other obstacles are insurmountable at that stage.
That means that I.T.A.2 could be on the air during 1966, but I would beg the House to consider one or two of the very real hurdles that must be overcome before there is a guarantee that the conditions of which I have spoken will be met. I ask my hon. Friends to believe me when I say that here I am not attempting to manufacture arguments out of the blue, but simply trying to face up to the hard realities.
First of all, we have for some time now been discussing a Bill which will have a very considerable effect On the future of independent television. The Authority itself is faced with a great


deal of work to give effect to this Bill—new contracts embodying a large number of new provisions covering such matters as rentals, control over the sale of programmes, networking, programme standards, reforms in advertising, and the rest. It will have to prepare itself for the change over to U.H.F. and 625 lines, and the introduction of colour television. Let us be under no illusion—these are very formidable tasks for the Authority to undertake, and it seems to me to be essential that if the intentions of this House are to be carried out effectively by the Authority—as the whole House and I must wish them to be—theAuthority should be given reasonable time to work them out in detail.
That leads me to ask whether it would be reasonable to add to this burden, right away, the complications of planning and organising a second programme. Such a decision would bring a great number of very real problems in its train, both for the Authority and for the Government. For example, how are contracts to be allocated, not merely for the second programme but for the first programme as well? Should new companies which enter the arena be obliged to operate on U.H.F. only, or should new companies and existing companies share the V.H.F. and U.H.F. channels?
What machinery is needed to ensure that at one and the same time there is the effective competition, to which my right hon. and learned Friend very rightly referred, between programme contractors and a real choice of programmes for the public? Perhaps, most important of all, should we accept the domination of the big four as a permanent feature of independent television in this country, or should we seize this opportunity given by a second programme to give other companies a chance to compete for the mass audiences which are now monopolised by the existing contractors?
Here, I come to the principal point which I make. I can put it very simply. If the Government were to give the go-ahead for the second independent television channel here and now, it is virtually certain that no new companies would enter the field, for reasons which

I shall explain in a minute. If, on the other hand, we wait until there has developed in this country a U.H.F. viewing market of a fair size, then it is quite on the cards—indeed, it is probable—that new companies will come into the field, and then we shall be able to secure genuine competition for the first time.
That leads me to what I think is, perhaps, the most decisive factor in all this. It is the financial one. No one has ever suggested, either in the House or outside, that a second I.T.V. programme would, in itself, be viable during the next year or two, even here in the Metropolis. This is why, as we all know, the 14 contractors, with one solitary exception, are against the second programme at this stage, and I should be astonished if the exception took the view that a second service would be viable during the next year or two.
I ask the House, even at this late hour, just to consider for a moment or two the revenue prospects of the second I.T.V. programme in the London area, if one were started during the early part of 1965, because this is crucial to the whole question. Such a programme would have to go out in U.H.F. on 625 lines. This immediately confronts us with the first and main factor which would condition the revenue of the programme company to which this second programme was allotted. Let us suppose that, by that time in 1965, there are about 3 million television sets in the London area. A lot of these sets, possibly a half or something like that, will be rented, and most of the people who rent these sets, though perhaps not all, would probably be willing to pay an extra few shillings a week for dual-standard sets. On the other hand, it would not be reasonable to suppose that people who own 405-line sets purchased at varying times in the past would all be willing to scrap them and put them into the garbage bin straightaway. Clearly, the replacement of these 405-line sets will be a fairly gradual process.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), whose knowledge of this part of the subject I gladly acknowledge, has estimated that, by June, 1964, there may be about 1 million dual-standard sets in the London area. The best information I can get from the radio industry and


elsewhere indicates that there are about 500,000 dual-standard sets in this area at present, and my advisers reckon that, by the end of 1965, the number might be 1 million to 1½ million, or possibly a few more. It is, therefore, probable that, in 1965, one half, or perhaps rather more than one half, of the sets in the London area will be capable of receiving programmes transmitted in U.H.F. on 625 lines. The rest of the people would still be content, for the time being, to receive the existing I.T.A. and B.B.C. services.
11.0 p.m.
Thus, in 1965—and this is the vital factor, from which there is no escape—something like one-half of the viewers in the London area would be able to receive a second I.T.A. programme. These people would have a choice of four programmes: B.B.C.1, B.B.C.2, I.T.A.1 and I.T.A.2. It would be rather too much to expect that all these people would take their allegiance en masse to the second I.T.A. programme, because some of them would still want to watch "Panorama" and "Coronation Street". I should be surprised if, on the average, I.T.A.2 attracted more than one-quarter of the viewers who were capable of receiving that programme.
Therefore, the probable viewing potental of I.T.A.2 in London, if it were introduced in 1965—this is important, because time is the all-important factor—would be about one quarter of one-half of the total London viewers—that is, 12 per cent. of the total number of viewers. If by 1965 three-quarters of viewers have new sets, the viewing potential would be one-quarter of three-quarters, or 18 per cent. of the total. But if by 1966 we suppose that 90 per cent. of the viewers in this area had dual-standard sets, the viewing audience might be getting on for 25 per cent. That is why the timing of this operation is so vitally important.
We must remember that advertising revenue is primarily related to the size of the viewing audience. Having said that, I do not dissent from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. It is true that given a second commercial programme, there would be additional advertising revenue, especially from smaller advertisers who are unable to pay the present rates.

Mr. Martin Maddan: Has my right hon. Friend the number of television sets that were able to receive I.T.V. on its introduction in the London area in 1955? I think he will find that it was about 200,000 only.

Mr. Bevins: My hon. Friend may well be right. I remind him that it was largely because of that factor that so many people burnt their fingers when commercial television was first introduced. We are more likely to get a successful second commercial channel if we synchronise that channel with the availability of public demand for the service.
I should like to add a word or two about the other side of the coin—that is, the cost of a second service. The costs of the contractors amount to about £36 million a year. Next year, or by 1965, they may have gone up to about £40 million. Nobody knows what a second programme would cost, but if it is to be good—and if it is not good, no hon. Member, on either side, wants it—it will cost a great deal more to run than it would bring in, certainly if it were introduced too soon. Even the most conservative estimate of cost which I have been able to get puts the cost a good deal higher than the total yield of the proposed levy in the Bill. It is for these reasons that we are entitled to ask for a little time, time to let the I.T.A. reorganise its existing services in the way Parliament desires, time to see how these reforms work out in practice, time to make proper plans for the introduction and development of a second programme and time, of course, to enable us to be sure that revenue will grow fast enough to meet the heavy costs of such a programme.
All this does not, however, mean that a decision to start a second programme must be put off for many years to come. I am not trying to convey that impression to the House. Indeed, it is our belief that the new arrangements proposed in the Bill will work effectively, although it will not be possible to form a firm judgment until the arrangements have been in operation for a reasonable time—say, during 1965. It ought to be possible at about that time to assess the effects of other factors, including the level and the trend of advertising revenue, the number of new sets, and the influence


of B.B.C. 2 on the financial health of the system.
But if all goes well and there are suitable companies willing to offer their services to the I.T.A., the Government would certainly hope during the autumn of 1965 to authorise the physical build-up of the second programme, starting in the areas of big population. I myself am convinced that this is the right approach in the national interest. I hope that my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend will not try to force an open door, and I beg them to recognise that the good will of Parliament to independent television is the greatest asset this industry can enjoy.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, would he just clear up this point? Is he saying that, despite his caveats, it is his hope and the hope of the Government to issue to I.T.A. 2 during 1965 a licence so that the second service will come on the air in 1966?

Mr. Bevins: That is perfectly correct.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I could not help thinking what super-optimists the movers of the Amendment are. They are talking about 1965 as if there will be a Tory Government in power then. Everybody in the country knows that that will not be so. Therefore, what they are doing by implication is committing somebody else to do something which they are desiring to do now.
I have conceded many things to the Postmaster-General during the Committee stage because I think he is right. Speaking generally, I would agree with most of the arguments that he has adduced today. But before I come to those, I want to say one word to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).
As I see it, there are two things in the Amendment—the date, 1965, and the delegation of authority to the I.T.A. to make the decision. An hon. Friend of mine has said that he would perhaps be prepared to allow that. Personally, I cannot agree with that. A decision on something which is of such major importance as whether we are to have an additional television channel is infinitely too big for an Authority of this sort to undertake. If when the right hon. and learned

Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer anybody had approached him and said that a decision involving the nation in expenditure of£40 million, £50 million or £60 million should be made on his behalf by a nationalised industry or any other board, would he have approved of it? He knows very well that any Chancellor, whatever the Government in power, will insist upon reserving to the Government the right of making such big financial decisions which involve not only money and capital investment but the use of material, labour and the rest which are factors in the economy of a great industrial nation. I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so readily thrown over the cloak of his responsibility to the nation for big expenditure. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] Oh yes, let us face it.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is happening all the time. The nationalised industries have certain investment programmes and they make their decisions.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the decisions to spend a certain amount rested with them?

Mr. Lloyd: They made their planned programmes for a period of years. That was accepted.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the specific question? I am not saying that the National Coal Board or the board of any other in nationalised industry did not build up a case for itself and come to a conclusion that it wished to spend, say, £50 million. I am asking him to say whether it was allowed to make the decision to spend the money without the consent of the Government and the Chancellor.

Mr. Lloyd: They made their forward plans with an overall capital investment programme four or five years ahead.

Mr. Williams: I must leave it to the House to decide whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered a straight question in a straightforward way.
I think that the Postmaster-General has a very sound argument here on the four counts he made. I am not a


scientist or a technologist. I have not all the information available that some people have. But I am perfectly satisfied that it is physically impossible either for I.T.A. or anybody else to open a fourth channel in 1965.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: How is it that Brisbane, with a population of 625,000, which has had television for only five years, is jumping the hurdle this year while we are making such a song and dance?

Mr. Williams: I cannot answer that question any more than I can answer the question of why Australia, with such a smaller population, beats us at cricket every time.
The point is that we have not the material nor the technicians and skilled people, nor the installations and machinery for this job, and if we started now at high speed to try to produce them, we would still not have them available by 1965. I am quite sure that that is the case. If anyone here has figures proving the contrary I should be glad to hear them.
The fact is that, with all its developments in telephone communications, the Post Office faces a serious shortage of skilled and semi-skilled engineers to carry out its normal work. If we try to superimpose obligations of this size on top of that, it will collapse under the strain. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that very well, otherwise there was not much sense in some of the Budgets he presented as Chancellor.
I am very glad that the Postmaster-General has said that the Government will review the position. I have no objection whatever to Independent Television reviewing the situation and all its aspects between now and 1965 and presenting its case to whoever happens to be Postmaster-General at the time. I think that this House would be failing in its constitutional responsibility if it failed to recognise that a matter of this magnitude was one proper for the I.T.A. and not the Government of the day.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I have enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Openshaw(Mr. W. R. Williams), but I cannot agree with him that the introduction of a second independent television

channel should be held up because of lack of technicians between now and 1965. If the hon. Member spoke in that manner in relation to our education or hospital programme he would be howled down, and I say that there is no evidence to support that view at all.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Member has raised the question of education. There is the important question of a proposed educational channel, and that is very relevant to what use would be made of a fourth channel if that became feasible and available.

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, that has been touched upon, but what I want to say is that we are grateful to the Postmaster-General for the very fair way in which he dealt with our arguments and for the obvious care and attention he has given to them. At the same time, I cannot agree with some of the points he has put forward. He is right to say that the timing of the operation of a second television channel is all-important, but I cannot go along with him when he says that he does not agree that multi-channel operation would be greatly encouraged if the radio-rental people and the television manufacturers were able to say that by such and such a date there would not only be B.B.C. but independent programmes available as well.
Do the Government intend to introduce a second channel—for independent television, I think—as soon as it can be made a success and in 1965? If that is the Postmaster-General's promise, then I say that he is a man of honour and a man for whom I have great admiration, and, in the light of that promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. V. Yates: It is very regrettable that an issue of this kind should be discussed at about twenty minutes past eleven at night and that we should have had such little time to debate it. The Committee stage has been rushed through with inadequate time and I claim the right to say that this proposal has not been adequately discussed. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers), who proposed the Amendment, has not interpreted the remarks


of the Postmaster-General correctly. I certainly did not understand the Postmaster-General to say that he was prepared to introduce a new channel in 1965. There may be plans for the following year, but the hon. Member was not quite fair to the Pilkington Committee, and for that reason I cannot but detain the House for a very short time.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a second channel. Originally, I was totally opposed to independent television of any sort. I was anti-I.T.V., but I have given a great deal of thought to this matter since its establishment and I have been more convinced of the need for competition since I have seen the programme, "That Was The Week That Was".
I want to see what the second programme can do and what independent television can do under its new constitution. We have given the Authority additional powers, and we shall watch how they are used. From talking to Sir Robert Fraser and other members of the Authority, I formed the view—and I hope that I was right—that they would not repeat some of the thoroughly objectionable features which we have had on the B.B.C. I shall watch very carefully. Hon Members opposite may be thankful that in the last two or three weeks there has not been a "That Was The Week That Was."
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks was not fair to the Pilkington Committee which examined a good deal of evidence and presented it fairly. On page 242 of its Report it quoted Associated Rediffusion as saying:
Competition between two services, each carrying advertisements, would inevitably be competition for the attention of the majority audience. Such a system would inevitably produce competing programmes of a general type provided today by I.T.A. but with the influence of the mass audience very much accentuated. Under such a system it would be even more difficult that under the present system to provide for the interests of minorities. Even the general quality of the programmes might well deteriorate.
In support of this view, it quoted former members of the Authority and paragraph 904 of the Report says:
We record here that the former Chairman and two former Members of the Authority were among those who argued

against the extension of its service. Giving oral evidence, Sir Kenneth Clark told us that the introduction in 1964 of a second service financed from advertising revenue would be the worst of all thing to do. We recall that Sir Kenneth was against any extension of the television services. Having recalled this, we note his view that, if there were two commercial competing companies in the same area, standards would drop.
These were the views of people of experience. But in spite of that evidence, in paragraph 907 the Pilkington Report said:
We recommend that if, after independent television as reconstituted and re-organised has had sufficient time to adapt itself to its new constitution, it has proved its capacity to realise the purposes of broadcasting, it should be authorised to provide a second programme.
I agree with that, and the sooner the better in view of the necessity for competition and for maintaining a high standard of broadcasting.
I do not like advertising, and I do not like advertising on independent television. I do not like the interruptions, and I do not like the idea of two sets of programmes both with advertising. Nevertheless, this has come to stay, and I believe that it has made its contribution. It has put the B.B.C. on its toes. There is still a lot wrong with the B.B.C., and let us hope that it can be put right by competition. I feel very strongly that the B.B.C. is not all that it should be. The Authority will have the power to criticise and to be objectionable. We shall have to watch that. I believe in the right to criticise and in freedom of speech but not the power to be thoroughly unscrupulous and objectionable to living persons. It does not matter whether it is the Royal Family, or who it is. I should like an opportunity to examine this to see how it is working, and we can then go forward to the next channel.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18.—(CO-OPERATION BETWEEN BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION AND AUTHORITY IN USE OF BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS.)

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, in page 16, line 3, to leave out
the British Broadcasting Corporation or".
I think that it might be convenient to the House if we were to take with this Amendment the next eight Amendments


in the name of my right hon. Friend, which all deal with the same matter.

Mr. Speaker: If the House pleases.

Mr. Mawby: The purpose of this group of Amendments is to take the reference to the B.B.C. out of this Clause. My right hon. Friend gave a promise in Committee that a similar power would be written into the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement to enable my right hon. Friend to issue similar directions to the Corporation. It was generally accepted by the Committee that the proper place for the obligation to be imposed on the B.B.C. was in its Charter and not in a Bill dealing with independent television.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 7 leave out "other" and insert
British Broadcasting Corporation (hereafter in this section referred to as 'the Corporation')".
In line 7 at end insert:
(b) require the Authority to permit such of the Corporation's broadcast transmissions as may be so specified to be radiated from a mast, tower or other installation belonging to the Authority; or
In line 8 leave out "both authorities to co-operate' and insert
the Authority to co-operate with the Corporation".
In line 9 leave out "their respective" and insert "the Authority's".

In line 12 [Clause 18], leave out "their duty" and insert
the duty of the Authority".
In line 13 leave out from "to" to end of line 14 and insert:
the Authority the Postmaster General shall consult the Authority and the Corporation".
In line 15 leave out from "to" to end of line 19 and insert:
the Authority, a dispute between the Authority and the Corporation arising out of the matters to which the notice relates is referred to the Postmaster General by either body, or it appears to the Postmaster General that there is such a dispute, he may give such directions to the Authority".
In line 21 leave out "their duty" and insert:
the duty of the Authority ".—[Mr. Mawby.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(RULES AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS.)

1.—(1) The advertisements must be clearly distinguishable as such and recognisably separate from the rest of the programme.

(2) Successive advertisements must be recognisably separate.

(3) Advertisements must not be arranged or presented in such a way that any separate advertisement appears to be part of a continuous feature.

(4) Audible matter in advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident.

2. The standards and practice to be observed in carrying out the requirements of the foregoing paragraph shall be such as the Authority may determine either generally or in particular cases.

3. The amount of time given to advertising in the programmes shall not be so great as to detract from the value of the programmes as a medium of information, education and entertainment.

4. Advertisements shall not be inserted otherwise than at the beginning or the end of the programme or in natural breaks therein.

5.—(1) Rules (to be agreed upon from time to time between the Authority and the Postmaster General, or settled by the Postmaster General in default of such agreement) shall be observed as to the classes of broadcasts (which shall in particular include the broadcast of any religious service) in which advertisements may not be inserted, and the interval which must elapse between any such broadcast and any previous or subsequent period given over to advertisements.

(2) The Postmaster General may, after consultation with the Authority, impose rules as to the minimum interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertisements, and the rules may make different provisions for different circumstances.

6. In the acceptance of advertisements, there must be no unreasonable discrimination either against or in favour of any particular advertiser.

7.—(1) The Charges made by any programme contractor for advertisements shall be in accordance with tariffs fixed by him from time to time, being tariffs drawn up in such detail and published in such form and manner as the Authority may determine.

(2) Any such tariffs may make provision for different circumstances, and, in particular, may provide, in such detail as the Authority may determine, for the making in special circumstances, of additional special charges.

8. No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature, and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end or has any relation to any industrial dispute.

9. If in the case of any of the television broadcasting stations used by the Authority, there appears to the Authority to be a sufficient local demand to justify that course, provision shall be made for a reasonable allocation of time for local advertisements, of which a suitable proportion shall be short local advertisements.—[Mr. Mawby.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(RULES AS TO ADVERTISEMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.—[Mr. Mawby.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(AMENDMENTS of PRINCIPAL ACT.)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 35 to 42.
Paragraph 2 of this Schedule, to which this Amendment relates, is a new provision about the appointment of the chairman and deputy-chairman of the Authority and their remuneration and allowances.
As so frequently occurs in Parliament, I am moving this Amendment in order to discover the Government's intentions. I do not think that the Postmaster-General will accuse me of any impatience in this matter. I have for some three or four months been pressing him to announce, as I think is proper, the name of the new chairman of the Independent Television Authority. I think that, as we are now reaching the end of the Bill, this is an appropriate occasion on which to ask, having undertaken all these labours here, whether we can be informed who is to carry our wishes into effect.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in this matter, but I think it is time that Parliament and the country knew who is going to be the chairman. There are several important reasons why the announcement should not be delayed any longer. In the first place, as he himself has been saying tonight with some force, there are many preparations to be made for carrying this Bill into effect, and I think it is improper that an Authority of this kind, which has such a lot of work before it, should now have been over seven months without a chairman.
The second reason why we should have this information is this. We have had some unfortunate experiences. I am not going to use this late hour to make any offensive remarks, but we have just had a chairman whose last contribution has been to write the most offensive and distasteful article in The Times about the Postmaster-General that anyone could imagine, and, after the very unhappy experience that we have had of the last

chairman, it is wrong for this appointment to be pushed through in the Parliamentary Recess and kept from the House of Commons. It is important that we should know now, before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and that we should have an opportunity of commenting on the choice which the right hon. Gentleman is apparently to make.
Another reason why it is important to press this matter—and if I speak plainly it is not in any sense from a desire to give offence—is because of rumours that we have heard about the possible person to be chosen. The person most fancied for the job is Lord Hill, the former Minister of Housing and Local Government. I should not have a great deal of objection to Lord Hill being chairman of this Authority. I think we all in the House of Commons have a toleration of each other's points of view on political matters, and we accept people for their individual character and qualities which bring them to high places. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the rumour which is going round is that Lord Hill cannot be appointed to this job at present because of the danger that, in the present difficulties of the Government, it would look as if another former Minister had suddenly been found a nice comfortable job, which would look too unpleasant in the present stage of the Government's unpopularity.
I do not know whether this is true, and I am not casting aspersions, but if Lord Hill is to be appointed it is proper that the appointment should not be secreted through in the Parliamentary Recess. It must not be withheld and then pushed through when nobody can comment upon it in this House and when nobody can make legitimate comments about an ex-Minister being found an appointment of this kind. I am not making such comments; I am only saying that it is wrong to hide this information in this way because it would look bad if it were to happen. I think the right hon. Gentleman must come clean and tell us who is intended to be the chairman, and what is to be the future set-up.
If I may add one minor question, which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman before, to what extent are there to be changes in the full-time nature of the appointments involved at the head of the Independent Television Authority?
One last point. There is a particular reason why we must be very careful about the appointment of a chairman under the application of this part of the Schedule. It is this. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would acquit me of wanting to be offensive—I have not been at all during the passage of this Bill—but I want to speak plainly. I think it is important that we should have the right hon. Gentleman's intentions clearly stated, because there is also involved in this the control of the higher officials of the Independent Television Authority.
If this matter is left any longer, the interpretation of the Bill will be starting, and the preparation of the many measures following the passing of the Bill, without the control of a strong chairman, and I would particularly object to that, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in all good faith, and without in any sense wanting to make a personal attack, I object very strongly, now that we have got an agreed Bill, agreed between the two sides of the House, to the idea of Sir Robert Fraser continuing as Director-General.
He is the man who created commercial television in the form in which we now have it. It is he more than anybody who is criticising the Pilkington Report. I am not going to give chapter and verse or dwell on this at any length. It is he more than anybody who has caused this Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has had to admit that this Bill has been introduced because the 1954 Act was never interpreted in the way we had most of us intended and hoped. In these circumstances I think it would be quite wrong, first of all, for this gentleman to continue. He ought to make way, with the new procedure to be followed under this new Bill, and the new régime to be established. In these circumstances if he is still there, as he apparently still is, it is important that the new chairman should be appointed without delay, so that the authority inside this body is clearly found at the top with the chairman. In the absence of a chairman it seems to be largely in the hands of the Director-General.
I have made this statement plainly without intending to cause any offence, but I think these things have to be stated firmly at some time. I ask the

right hon. Gentleman to use this opportunity, as we are now reaching the end of our proceedings on this Bill, to say bluntly that the appointment is now about to be made, and that he will not hide it from Parliament, and that it will not be hidden in the depths of the Parliamentary Recess, and that he will give every possible and proper opportunity for it to be discussed, once he has made the appointment. I hope that my points are sufficient to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that many of us, who have now reached the point of agreeing this Bill with him almost to the letter, feel that we are entitled to this final act of consideration from him.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) that the appointment of the chairman of the Independent Television Authority should be made with all speed. Perhaps I am a trusting individual, but I read in the Daily Mail—I think it was—two or three weeks ago that the late Dr. Hill—if that is the right way to describe him—had been made a baron and appointed chairman of the Independent Television Authority. I am sure that is the way in which a great many of the public read it, and I did not notice that there was any great public outcry against that suggested appointment. I do not know whether he has been appointed. I have not discussed this with my right hon. Friend, but I took it, from what I read in the paper, that this had been done, and I did not notice any public outcry.
I very much regret the way the hon. Member, even with his usual charm, seemed to suggest that if Lord Hill, as I think he is now called, were to be appointed that might look like some piece of political escapism or jobbery, something like that. Surely the hon. Member's mind goes back as far as mine, and many ex-Members of this House have gone to do great work for the State, to head nationalised industries, to serve in Commonwealth countries, and so on. That sort of thing has been going all through this Parliament and before.
I think what the hon. Member said very unfortunate. I am sure he did not want to suggest that there could be any thought in anybody's mind, if this


gentleman is to be appointed, that the Government could have had any feelings of that sort.

Mr. Chapman: I accept the contrary view the hon. Member is putting, but I say to him that this is a rather different matter. There has been a lot of criticism about the way in which Lord Kilmuir was found a job, not by the Government but by private industry. This, following hard on the heels of that, a man retired from the Government forcibly—it has been said widely in the Press—would look quite wrong in the present state of the Government's health.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not want to follow that point because I might stray from the rules of order. I hope that, whoever the Government appoint to this position, he will be the best possible man for the job irrespective of any of the possible reactions, or alleged reactions, suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfields (Mr. Chapman) raised this matter in Committee and asked if it would be possible for the Government to announce the name of the gentleman concerned before Report stage. I was very much hoping that that might be possible, but in the event it has turned out not to be possible. All I can say is that I expect to announce the name of the chairman of the Authority early next week.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the Postmaster-General will appreciate that this is a matter of considerable importance. I was very disturbed recently to read Mr. Clive Jenkin's book, "The Power Behind the Scenes", in which he described the activities of the Prime Minister with the programme companies immediately before the election. That is undesirable. This is a public service and should be regarded as such. I hope that extreme care will be taken to safeguard the position of television as a public service and not subject to any pressures.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, at the end to insert:
9. To the definition of "disqualified person" in section 5(1) there shall be added the following paragraph: —
(d) being a body corporate carries on activities which are wholly or partly for

purposes other than the purposes of the provision of programmes for broadcasting by the Authority".
This touches a matter which was constantly referred to in discussion in Committee. Under this Amendment one could raise the whole question of the association of the Press with television, but the matter was thoroughly debated in Standing Committee. I do not return to it except to say that it is one of the matters we had in mind in putting forward this Amendment. What we have in mind particularly is that difficulties arise once we stress, as we have done, the public service nature of television. Those difficulties arise through the association of television with other interests.
On reflection, I would not press the Amendment too hard because I have confessed in Standing Committee that one should encourage the association of television with the entertainment industry. I think that the programme companies ought to have done far more to assist entertainment outside television. This is a purpose they should recognise as theirs, but what one does not like—and it has developed very much in the last year—is the seeking of profit for the sake of profit.
There has been a very profitable investment in television. It seems that this motive has led to all sorts of strange associations between television companies and other interests. This is undesirable. I can think of instances in which the association with entertainment has been broken largely because television has been so profitable. Other associations with entertainment—which led no doubt to appointments when the companies were selected—have been broken because the other interests in entertainment have been less profitable and profitability has attracted interests far removed from television.
Perhaps our proposal goes too far. However, if the Postmaster-General is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that he will be wiling to consider the matter between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Member implied, the Amendment does go a good deal too far, whether or not the principle of it is right. For example, it


would exclude the production of programmes for broadcasting outside the United Kingom and the sale of things like the Television Times. I am prepared to look at the matter in principle, but I cannot, in all honesty, say that I am prepared to give any promise at this stage.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is unfortunate that we did not press the matter further earlier. However, at this stage I accept what the Postmaster-General has said and, since it would go too far, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, at the end to insert:
9. In section 5(1,c) the words "otherwise than by virtue of paragraph (a) of this definition" shall cease to have effect.
Representations have been made to us that provision should be made to prevent foreign-controlled British domiciled companies from being used as facades to obscure foreign infiltrations. That is the purpose of the Amendment and, with that explanation, I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Mawby: The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the categories of companies which are disqualified from being programme contractors. It would disqualify a company which had among its directors, officers or servants any person who was not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
There is no justification for disqualifying such a company. The provision in Section 5(1,c) already disqualifies a company which is under the control of one or more persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. This seems a quite wide enough restriction. Also under the Amendment a company would be disqualified if it employed, for example, just one man who lived in the United States for the purpose of negotiating sales of the company's recorded programmes to United States purchasers, and this would be so even if the employee was a British subject. The Amendment has no bearing on directors

of programme companies who are of foreign nationality but who are ordinarily resident in this country.
We take the hon. Member's point and obviously there is great value in it. However, I think he will see that the Amendment does not do what he hopes it would do.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged for that explanation. We are not in disagreement about our intention. While we have obviously not met the purpose we we had in mind, I hope that when the Bill goes to another place we will have another shot at this and get nearer to the mark. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 21, line 16, at the end to insert:
14. In section 16(1)(b) after "health" there shall be added "training".
The Assistant Postmaster-General will remember that the point raised in the Amendment came up rather late for discussion in our earlier debates on the Bill. I am sure that he will not quarrel with its purpose. I hope that on this occasion my hon. Friends and I will have more luck with the Amendment and that we have met our common intention.

Mr. Mawby: As the hon. Member said, we had an interesting discussion in Standing Committee of the matters surrounding the subject raised by the Amendment. Acceptance of it would mean that the Authority would be called upon to discuss with its appropriate staff associations its proposals for the training of staff.
Reference was made in the Standing Committee to what the Authority was doing in regard to training, and I think that if this Amendment is made it will make quite certain that the Authority is in complete touch with the staff associations, and we would naturally hope that full advantage was taken of the provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Eirene White: I beg to move, in page 21, line 16, at the end to insert:

Study and preservation of television material

14. In section 13, at the end, there shall be added the following subsection: —
(2A) The Postmaster General may give a direction that the Authority shall make


such annual payments as they think fit to the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive provided that they are satisfied that such moneys will be used for the study of the Authority's television broadcasts and for the preservation of television films broadcast by the Authority.

I apologise to the House for bringing up this matter at this very late hour, but I hope that it will none the less receive sympathetic consideration. For the benefit of those hon. Members who are, perhaps, not fully acquainted with the British Film Institute—and the National Film Archive which comes under its aegis—I would say that these institutions receive grants from public funds, and have done for a number of years. At one time, they were confined to the study and preservation of cinematograph films but fairly recently, with the approval and consent of the Treasury, their scope was extended to television material as well. Consideration is also being given to a possible change of name which will make manifest the expansion of their scope.

I am sure that it will be agreed that with the tremendous increase in the amount of television being broadcast, and the fact that we have here a new medium of communication which has its own standards of aesthetic and creative talent, it is desirable that we should have some high-level critical study of the medium of the kind sponsored for a number of years by the British Film Institute in relation to cinematograph films. We also need to preserve outstanding programmes which, with television rather more than with cinematograph films, are in acute danger of being lost unless someone regularly pays attention to what is being broadcast, and makes an intelligent and systematic selection of material that can be preserved for posterity.

The British Film Institute is embarking on a World Television Festival to be held in London in November, with which the right hon. Gentleman is to be associated. We have already had support in cash and kind from the B.B.C. and from some of the independent television companies.

The Amendment would give the Post-master-General power to direct the Authority, if he thought it desirable, to support, and provide funds for work

which I consider to be of great value, and I am sure that this should be done by the Authority rather than on the somewhat irregular and haphazard basis of going round from one television company to another. Whether or not the Amendment is drafted in the best possible way, I do not know, but if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he accepted the intention behind it, but did not care for the drafting, that matter could be dealt with in another place.

Mr. Mawby: We are, naturally, impressed by what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said, but the important point in this matter is the basic difference between the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. The Corporation produces its own programmes, whereas, of course, the Authority does not produce programmes. The programme companies produce them. One hopes that all the programme companies will do as the B.B.C. is doing and will contribute and help to carry on this great work which is going on.
The power to direct the I.T.A. is unnecessary. The Authority already has the power, under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the principal Act, to make a payment to any body engaging in activities which are conducive to the performance of its duties. In fact, the I.T.A. is a corporate member of the Institute and pays subscriptions to it and the National Film Archive. Also, it is contributing to and supporting a proposed World Festival of Television Programmes to be held by the Institute at the end of the year.
This shows that the Authority has the power to do what the hon. Lady suggests that it should do. It has already shown its intentions, and it is already making contributions. In the circumstances, it would be wrong, I suggest, for us to do other than try to give it some backing. We should not seek to write into the Bill something laying this duty upon the Authority.
I hope that, with my report of what the Authority is doing at present, the hon. Lady will be willing not to press her Amendment.

Mrs. White: In view of what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said, I do not want to persist in the argument at this time of night. I must point out


that a television archive is an exceedingly expensive matter, and the small subscription made by the I.T.A. is, frankly, irrelevant in that context. Therefore, a completely different basis of subscription will be necessary if anything approaching the cost of preserving the television archive is intended. Having made that proviso, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mawby: I beg to move, in page 21, line 23, at the end to insert:

Capacity of Authority as a statutory corporation

15. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (capacity of Authority to do such things and enter into such transactions as are incidental or conducive to the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the principal Act) shall have effect as if the reference to that Act included a reference to this Act.

The wording of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the principal Act speaks of the powers and duties of the Authority under that Act. In order that there shall be no uncertainty, it is desirable to extend the reference to the powers and duties of the I.T.A. to include the present Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(REPEALS.)

Amendment made: In page 22, column 3, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert, "Schedules 2 and 3".—[Mr. Bevins.]

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
At this hour of the night, I intend to spare the House a speech on Third Reading. Just in a sentence, I wish to express the appreciation of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and myself to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have co-operated so happily with the Government in this enterprise.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to share in that expression of opinion by the right hon. Gentleman and to include him and his hon. Friend among those who ought to be thanked for the part they have played. At one point, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about a quiet revolution in television. I think that the Bill will considerably speed that revolution.

Mr. Robert Cooke: May I add just a little to the kind words said about my right hon. Friend? He has had a very difficult job over a very long period in hacking his way through all kinds of advice, good and bad, and facts and figures, some accurate and some less than accurate. Throughout all our proceedings, he has done his best to improve the Bill for the benefit of commercial television in every way possible. I am sure that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I express to him our thanks for the way he has dealt with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (DEEP SHELTERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

12 m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am sorry that I have to delay the servants of the House at this late hour, and I want to make clear in the first instance that in raising this matter I do not want in any way to create a feeling of despondency in the minds of the people. Nor have I any intention of jeopardising security. At some stage, however, it is necessary to have a clear and frank discussion, even though it be a short one of this kind, with the Government concerning the provision of deep air raid shelters for the people.
This debate arises from Questions that I put to the Prime Minister after disclosures had been made in the "Spies for Peace" document and the Prime Minister's apparent reluctance to give an answer about the provision of deep air raid shelters. That merely continued the policy of the Government, because previously I had submitted a whole series of Questions on civil defence, including the provision of deep air raid shelters, and the spokesman for the Home Department denied the existence of any types of shelter.
The Prime Minister, when he replied to the Questions that were submitted to him, said that the regional seats of government were not deep air raid


shelters at all but that in some instances they had deep air raid shelters attached to them. In practice, however, as far as I can ascertain, the whole of the R.S.G.s throughout the country have deep shelters attached to them, and a moment's reflection shows that this is essential if the intention of the Prime Minister is to be carried out.
The Prime Minister said that the R.S.Cs were not secret. I complained that the Government had got to the point of secrecy going mad, but the Prime Minister said that they were regional seats of government deliberately designed to meet a given situation. It is logical on the part of any Government that provision of this kind should be made.
The fact is that attached to the R.S.G.s is some form of deep air raid protection for the personnel who will be in the organisation of government in these circumstances. In fact, the whole of the administrative services are represented in the plans for this type of arrangement. There are fully-equipped deep air raid shelters for all the personnel who have been allocated places in the R.S.G.s. There is the provision of water, air and food, and places have been allocated. In other words, the whole of the arrangements have already been made in this narrow sector of the necessary organisational medium for the continuance of government.
The principle that has been accepted is that if government is to continue, deep air raid shelters must be provided for the people who are to continue that government in the event of a nuclear attack. I pause there for a moment, because I should like to know what the Joint Undersecretary of State for the Home Department thinks about the position. It is a little fantastic when we get—I shall not disclose anything—a whole list of people who have already had places allocated. Whether the next-of-kin will be taken I do not know. Let us assume that these men go to the place and their wives refuse to stay at home. By what method will the people who have not already been allocated places, maybe the wives and children of the people allocated places, be kept out of the deep air raid shelters? Will they be shot?
Whatever the circumstances are, if there is a nuclear attack the Government have

accepted the principle of deep air raid shelters for the continuance of government. If that is so, what about those who are going to be governed? I argue that it is just as essential to have the same form of protection for the people who are to be governed as it is for those who are going to govern. If it is right to make provision for those who have been designated—not elected—to be the future Government in the event of war taking place, it surely must be right to accept precisely the same principles for the people of the country.
It does not follow by any means that deep air raid shelters are necessary only for nuclear war. Indeed, it may be—we hope not—that this country will be involved in war of a conventional type. As a result of our experience in the last war, we know that vast numbers of people can be destroyed by air raids. We know that by the aerial bombing of the R.A.F. whole areas of Germany were laid waste and enormous numbers of people killed. To take the latest evidence that we have in connection with Dresden, there was a situation in which it is now accepted that about 350,000 people were killed as a result of the combined night and day raids that took place in the latter part of the war.
If this is a possibility, I should have thought it essential that the Government should have at least taken the precaution to see that our people were protected. I do not think that our people are not adult enough to be able to face up to the full implications of future possibilities. They are sufficiently intelligent and adult to have the facts presented to them and to act in the way they always have done—with courage and forbearance.
To consider nuclear war, we know that with the present weapons that we have in the world if this country is attacked there is a grave likelihood of an enormous number of people being destroyed, just as there is a great likelihood that people in countries opposed to us will equally be destroyed. But our problem is to look after our own people. Even if we take the 10-megaton bomb, we know—as I think is accepted, by implication, at least, in the documents that the Government produce—that there would be complete devastation for at least three miles around the point of impact of the bomb. Almost 75 per cent.


of the people would either be killed or suffer severe injuries within a circle of seven miles and there would be further destruction to a circle of 10 miles. We know that the Soviet Union has already exploded what appears to have been a bomb of about 60 megatons.
It is a terrific problem to see what we can do to ensure that there is the greatest degree of protection for our people if we are involved in war, which none of us wants. We have some guidance as to what would be likely to take place. We know that under the most favourable conditions—the longest possible warning and a civil defence organisation as good as it could be—there is grave danger that about 15 million people would be killed if the attack were on a large scale.
This is something at which the mind boggles if one tries to think of what one can do to meet such a situation. Quite apart from the millions of dead, there would be the aftermath, in which millions more people, seriously injured, would require medical aid. There would be chaos and blockages in the bombed areas and far beyond them.
Any Government who refuse to examine clearly what steps should be taken now would be guilty of almost criminal negligence. There is no point in spending vast sums on building up a war machine if, at the same time, we refuse to protect our home front. The only possible way that the nation could ensure some degree of safety for our people would be to begin now, late in the day though it might well prove to be, to examine the possibilities in the way the creation of the R.S.G.s was examined—creating in every civil defence area, in every large city and town, deep air raid shelters, astronomical though the cost might well be.
I urge the Government to meet the situation in the way they are meeting the possibility of government in these conditions. There is no point in having R.S.G.s if the people outside are to be blasted to Kingdom come. The only way we can tackle the problem is to set our sights higher and proceed to organise plans for the safety of the people, in the same way as the Government have planned for future government in the event of catastrophe—by basing our plans on the fact that we must have a greater degree of shelter for this type of warfare than we have at present.

12.15 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me the opportunity to speak about deep shelters, and I say that with all sincerity because this is a vitally important subject. Indeed, civil defence is a subject which I think we should discuss more often in this House and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I certainly do not accuse him of spreading despondency or infringing any kind of security regulation in touching upon this matter.
Indeed, I am prepared to go a good deal further tonight in setting out the facts than perhaps has previously been done in the past, and I welcome the opportunity to dispose once and for all of any suspicions or misapprehensions about deep shelters. I have studied the many Questions which the hon. Gentleman has put on this subject and the Answers which he has been given in which he has been told, in fact, in effect, that there are no deep shelters, attached to R.S.G.S or otherwise. I hope to convince him that not only are there none, but—subject to a very limited qualification to which I will return later—also why there are none.
There are different definitions of what is meant by a "deep shelter", but let us assume that it is something that gives protection—as we must assume—from blast and heat. What we mean by a "deep shelter" in that significance would be first a place constructed primarily for the protection of the occupants, as distinct from a place of work which might have some protection which would enable work to continue and secondly, a place constructed wholly underground at considerable depth and not a construction placed partially underground like the basement of a house.
The reason why the Government have made no attempt to provide such shelters as defined for anyone follows from the assessment of nuclear weapons. They are different in size and character, but to take the worst, which I think the hon. Gentleman had in mind, we have to assume that the average radius over which every house and building would be totally destroyed by a ground-burst


nuclear weapon varies from one-and-a-half miles for a 1-megaton to three-and-a-half miles for a 10-megaton weapon. Inside that area, no shelter which it would be practicable to build on any scale at all would give complete protection. As some indication of the problem, I can tell the House that even a tunnel dug in 1,500 ft. of rock would fall in as a result of earth tremors from the explosion, at ground level, of a megaton nuclear weapon—that is, if the burst was immediately above it. Outside that area—and, of course, we do not know anything about where an explosion might come—less elaborate shelters might give some protection against blast, although a more widespread danger would be from fall-out.
That would be a major danger outside the area of actual devastation. Fall-out, briefly, is material stirred up and irradiated by a nuclear explosion; that is, material which has become radioactive and blown into the air. It comes down by degrees and loses its radioactivity by degrees; at first quite fast, and then more slowly. Protection depends on the weight of the material and the distance between the person and the source of radiation. Therefore, any shielding material between a human being and such material is of some value, and since the cumulative dose is what matters, the chances of survival can be increased quite considerably by taking immediate cover before the fallout comes down, and staying there, if necessary for days.
It is perfectly possible for an ordinary householder to construct for himself with very simple means the protection that would shelter him from fall-out, and the best means of doing so have been set out in a training handbook popularly known as the "Householder's Handbook" which is now generally available.
The point I want to make is, of course, that to achieve this degree of protection there is no need for a deep shelter. I will not elaborate on the details which are in the handbook. I want to stress two essential points—that in the area of total devastation there can be no protection at all, and outside it quite simple measures of protection, available to the ordinary person on his own in his own home, can give a considerable prospect

of survival. Put simply, that is why there are no deep air raid shelters.
The qualifications which I have to make are these. First, we are now considering possible ways of providing communal deep shelters against fall-out for people who might be caught away from their homes, or might be living in homes too flimsy to give any significant degree of protection. A pilot survey is to be undertaken to examine what of this kind could be made available. The survey will cover things that are already available, though they make only a marginal addition to our resources.
Despite what I said at the beginning, there are a small-scale number of deep shelters, for instance, the deep tube shelters in London which were constructed during the war and about 100 caves and tunnels prepared in the last war. These are nothing more than a marginal addition on which it is impossible to place any great reliance and there is no question of allocation of them or places in them.
The major qualification I want to make is that what many people have in mind when they talk of deep shelters are premises earmarked as civil defence controls, or for use by the Royal Observer Corps for its task of reporting fall-out all over the country. These are not deep in the sense I have defined, but in some cases they are partially sunk underground and, of course, where existing underground works are available, we have taken advantage of them.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member and those who argue that the public is entitled to know what is being done for it and to be indignant if anything practicable has been neglected. I am also confident, and I know that the hon. Member would agree, that the public does not seek to know every detail on which it is necessary and prudent to impose a measure of security, although I am always ready to consider arguments that we draw the line of security too tightly and should relax it, as I am about to do. I entirely disagree, on the other hand, with those who argue that to make any preparations at all is tantamount to plotting nuclear war on our own account. I do not think that we need to waste time arguing that one. I am perfectly willing to refer explicitly to some of the headquarters controls I have mentioned, subject to that proviso about security and


subject to the point that none of them is a deep shelter.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want any confusion on this. I have argued that deep shelters are attached to the centres. I deliberately tried not to make remarks which were liable to be misconstrued in certain places, but the point is that it is accepted that deep shelters are attached to the centres.

Mr. Woodhouse: I entirely understood what the hon. Member was saying. I want to make it clear that he is mistaken even as he now puts it. There are no such things either as part of or attached to R.S.G.s. I think that he will see the point a little more clearly if I go on to the catalogue which I was about to give him.
There are the Royal Observer Corps headquarters, of which no secret is made. There are 29 R.O.C. group headquarters planned in the country, of which 26 are complete, and there are over 1,500, nearly 1,600, Royal Observer Corps reporting posts planned, of which over 1,300 are now complete. They are at intervals of 5 to 10 miles all over the country, and there are several in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which I have no doubt he has observed.
There are civil defence headquarters constructed by local authorities, which are undoubtedly fairly well-known locally, and there is no reason why they should not be.
There are other headquarters higher up in the control chain including R.S.G.S which are widely known to the people who take part in exercises, and these people run into thousands. This is why we had trouble recently with the "Spies for Peace." Some of these headquarters were included in the "Spies for Peace" pamphlet, but fortunately it is not necessary to assume that all their information was uniformly accurate, and I do not think that it is necessary for me to supplement it with fuller details.
What I think is necessary is to repudiate the notion that some of these are deep shelters designated for occupation either by military governors or by people judged specially worthy of survival. The facts are exactly as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated them on 23rd April in answer to questions. These places have the primary purpose not of

protecting occupants, but of enabling succour and relief to be brought to the public after an attack to be carried out to the best advantage and to marshal services and supplies essential for survival. They do not give the occupants any more chance of survival—this is a melancholy fact but it must be faced—if they happened to be in the area of total devastation than anybody else in the area would have. The occupants would, of course, be selected not for their intrinsic merit as judged by some anonymous Government official, but for the help they could give to others as a result of their training.
There are 11 of these R.S.G.S in the United Kingdom, nine in England and Wales, one in Scotland, and one in Northern Ireland. The staff establishments of them would be between 400 and 500 people under the control of a regional commissioner who would be appointed in a constitutional way which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 2nd May, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman for further details.
Among those in the R.S.G. there would of course be some military staff, because the local forces would come under the control of the regional commissioner if communications were severed with the central Government. If the hon. Gentleman ever found himself in one of these places and observed men in uniform, they perhaps would be about 10 per cent, of the total staff he would see there, and more than half of them would be other ranks of the Territorial Army engaged on common services such as communications, and so on.
I have only a minute or two in which to conclude, and it has not been possible for me to answer every point made by the hon. Gentleman, though there are some on which I shall communicate with him afterwards.
In conclusion, I say that we are accustomed to hearing criticisms of civil defence plans on two grounds: either that they are inadequate and ineffective, or that they ought to be abandoned because they are in the nature of things a useless waste of money. As regards


the first point, we are always ready to listen to constructive criticisms from hon. Members and from people outside. I think that the second argument is one which could be accepted only if one were absolutely satisfied either that there were no danger whatever of nuclear attack, or that there was no possibility of survivors from a nuclear attack. I think it is obvious that neither of these assumptions could possibly be justified.
The third ground of criticism which the hon. Gentleman has by implication introduced tonight is that civil defence is a device—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock